Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9628DC7D;
	Tue,  3 Jul 2018 04:57:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3B2B691;
	Tue,  3 Jul 2018 04:57:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
	id 41KX0r4BL0z9s3R; Tue,  3 Jul 2018 14:57:16 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgS-_D7aBcDf_nAbuREBxv65zYMr60-1YqCnx-esvRVfEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <871sewirni.fsf@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgS-_D7aBcDf_nAbuREBxv65zYMr60-1YqCnx-esvRVfEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 14:26:53 +0930
Message-ID: <87y3esvrvu.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP sighash_noinput
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 04:57:19 -0000

Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to pick up the discussion from a few months ago, and propose a new
>> sighash flag, `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, that removes the commitment to the previous
>
> I know it seems kind of silly, but I think it's somewhat important
> that the formal name of this flag is something like
> "SIGHASH_REPLAY_VULNERABLE" or likewise or at least
> "SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE".

I agree with the DO_NOT_WANT-style naming.  REUSE_VULNERABLE seems to
capture it: the word VULNERABLE should scare people away (or at least
cause them to google further).

Thanks,
Rusty.