1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1YE21c-000314-1b
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:37:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yh0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-yh0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YE21X-0001Uw-Uw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:37:16 +0000
Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id z6so9198108yhz.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:37:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.105.180 with SMTP id k40mr24601736yhg.85.1421872626566;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.130.19 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:37:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
<54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:37:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3-wpMV8A8x2kqkWSB2XAiBVVY0RnAAiDKd54Og9erZiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b8b4d28a30050d2f8456
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1YE21X-0001Uw-Uw
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:37:16 -0000
--089e0160b8b4d28a30050d2f8456
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
DERSIG BIP looks great to me, just a few nit-picky changes suggested:
You mention the "DER standard" : should link to
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.690-0207.pdf (or
whatever is best reference for DER).
"this would simplify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations" -->
"this would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations"
"causing opcode failure" : I know what you mean by "opcode failure", but
it might be good to be more explicit.
"since v0.8.0, and nearly no transactions" --> "and very few
transactions..."
"reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itself as well" :
awkward English. How about just "This proposal has the added benefit of
reducing transaction malleability (see BIP62)."
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e0160b8b4d28a30050d2f8456
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">DERSIG BIP looks great to me, j=
ust a few nit-picky changes suggested:</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">You mention the "DER standard" :=
should link to=A0<a href=3D"http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/lan=
guages/X.690-0207.pdf">http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages=
/X.690-0207.pdf</a> (or whatever is best reference for DER).</div><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">"this would sim=
plify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations" =A0--> "t=
his would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations"<br clear=3D"=
all"><div><br></div><div>"causing opcode failure" =A0: I know wha=
t you mean by "opcode failure", but it might be good to be more e=
xplicit.</div><div><br></div><div>"since v0.8.0, and nearly no transac=
tions" --> =A0"and very few transactions..."</div><div><b=
r></div><div>"reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itsel=
f as well" =A0: awkward English. How about just "This proposal ha=
s the added benefit of reducing transaction malleability (see BIP62)."=
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">-=
-<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>
--089e0160b8b4d28a30050d2f8456--
|
