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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YE2j7-0005LD-Rm
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:22:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.180; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com ([209.85.213.180])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YE2j6-0000M2-KW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:22:13 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id b16so17224273igk.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:22:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.36.103 with SMTP id p7mr7618674igj.20.1421875327340; Wed,
21 Jan 2015 13:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.20.229 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:22:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3-wpMV8A8x2kqkWSB2XAiBVVY0RnAAiDKd54Og9erZiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
<54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com>
<CABsx9T3-wpMV8A8x2kqkWSB2XAiBVVY0RnAAiDKd54Og9erZiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:22:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBitdL0fRvxFBqT8kR4BGsqgV5rgTTiB3hLm+gJMv4Ca9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
(pieter.wuille[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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YE2j6-0000M2-KW
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 21:22:13 -0000
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)."
Nit addressed, hopefully.
--
Pieter
|
