Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X8FCo-0003gD-BY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:56:38 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.176; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X8FCn-0008W6-Lt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:56:38 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id tr6so4977395ieb.21 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.126.7 with SMTP id mu7mr44019123igb.20.1405716992387; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.27.228 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:56:32 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Mike Hearn 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 (laanwj[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: 1X8FCn-0008W6-Lt 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 20:56:38 -0000 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