Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X8JSL-000512-5x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:28:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.171; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X8JSJ-0008JV-UF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:28:57 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l4so3343312lbv.2 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:28:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.3.65 with SMTP id a1mr9219832laa.76.1405733329249; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.35.138 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:28:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:28:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Aaron Voisine 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 (gmaxwell[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: 1X8JSJ-0008JV-UF 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: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:28:57 -0000 On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: >> 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. Nope. Your homework assignment is to explain why. :)