Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X8GFr-0006GC-GX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:03:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.43; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.219.43]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X8GFq-0002m8-Df for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:03:51 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i7so4313272oag.16 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:03:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.236.225 with SMTP id ux1mr10936120obc.57.1405721024907; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.169.109 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:03:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:03:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Wladimir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (voisine[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1X8GFq-0002m8-Df Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Small update to BIP 62 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:03:51 -0000 > 9. New signatures by the sender I'm not suggesting it be required, but it would be possible to mitigate this one by requiring that all signatures deterministically generate k per RFC6979. I'm using this in breadwallet. Aaron Voisine breadwallet.com On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Wladimir wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> The rationale doesn't seem to apply to rule #4, what's so special about that >> one? > >> 4. Non-push operations in scriptSig Any non-push operation in a scriptSig invalidates it. > > Having non-push operations in the scriptSig is a source of > malleability, as there can be multiple sequences of opcodes that > evaluate to the same result. > > Wladimir > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and > search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck > Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code > search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development