Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YFOU2-0006iD-FA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:48:14 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YFOU1-0000Bs-66 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:48:13 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ar1so4790898iec.6 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 06:48:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.12.88 with SMTP id w85mr13606060ioi.28.1422197290766; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 06:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.6.209 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 06:48:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87egqnwt7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:48:10 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Pieter Wuille 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: 1YFOU1-0000Bs-66 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures 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: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:48:14 -0000 On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > * Add it to the softfork now, and be done with it. Initially I was of the opinion that we couldn't do that, because soft-forks which hit transactions many nodes would relay+mine creates a forking risk... but with the realization that imbalanced R/S plus checksig-not would only be work with 0.10rc/git changed my mind. Unlike two years ago miners no longer appear to be racing the bleeding edge, and it's never show up in a release. Obviously the next RC would also make those non-standard. And then we'll have some non-trivial amount of time before the soft-fork activates for whatever stragglers there are on 0.10 prerelease code to update. The deployment of the soft-fork rules themselves will already drive people to update. In terms of being robust to implementation differences, not permitting overlarge R/S is obviously prudent. So I think we should just go ahead with R/S length upper bounds as both IsStandard and in STRICTDER.