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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mark@friedenbach.org>) id 1Z1AfU-0000bz-C6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:45:32 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z1AfR-0002Ou-Lm
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:45:32 +0000
Received: by igblz2 with SMTP id lz2so30271938igb.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 02:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=gHJdJNMQX0PUBYYF3Z6pYQYC1sv6vipgMoDSHaOz8n0=;
b=JRc/yalshdCQhcX+mDS3hKeSGIclyoftLHPCI4zOtZIAtS6776wak13bQWcb7cGFoM
r71+3pMOwirmJmgLpfkb0HBuPxjfCzjXrGdmqN+sMfgPQ8ykpDjB+HfVj6CB4hCyC28a
H0SbdwCnsAK84JzXPPqSmS8ltvTysHhuJ78cc5DSLlBqJMnjWUfblcdc8OL3qXlkoWN4
1xYhjOY+7A0QUpmHe5ij70riFVB0kDtGVJh251+2MUf4fo2ZVgkpr6GsNPtcFKEMOaDU
+WCiU7riNd+gXSinbERu+Aksm0xquGxnMasRzBx1iEy1U5XdseYWe21D7GjW1Rjz52pu
L1hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlPSuGD/IQGngIfpZmKD0Q0BFvIwJZ32Vx5gYlg7ICN2QfB9D+jJsG0uvrUQVn6FTMci9pA
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.27.6 with SMTP id p6mr2773324igg.46.1433583924204; Sat,
06 Jun 2015 02:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.10.197 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 02:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [172.56.17.6]
Received: by 10.107.10.197 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 02:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150606082447.GA12749@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <87k2vhfnx9.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAOG=w-sfpgciy9AzmtjEU5-uZY5KCAuS-SGsbff81w1dGVyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
<20150606082447.GA12749@amethyst.visucore.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 02:45:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-v_wHdTEzRn2ej292c4x72C0d4bmp40wrGRmwMsXFi+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10ce478eee470517d644db
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1Z1AfR-0002Ou-Lm
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Canonical input and output ordering
in transactions
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: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:45:32 -0000
--047d7b10ce478eee470517d644db
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Certainly, but I would drop discussion of IsStandard or consensus rules.
On Jun 6, 2015 1:24 AM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 09:46:17PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > Rusty, this doesn't play well with SIGHASH_SINGLE which is used in
> > assurance contracts among other things. Sometimes the ordering is set by
> > the signing logic itself...
>
> But in that case (unconstrained) randomization can't be used either. This
> is posed as an alternative to randomization. So in that regard, the
> proposal still makes sense.
> I think this move to verifyable, deterministic methods where possible is
> good.
>
> Wladimir
>
--047d7b10ce478eee470517d644db
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">Certainly, but I would drop discussion of IsStandard or cons=
ensus rules.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jun 6, 2015 1:24 AM, "Wladimir J. van de=
r Laan" <<a href=3D"mailto:laanwj@gmail.com">laanwj@gmail.com</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Fri, =
Jun 05, 2015 at 09:46:17PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:<br>
> Rusty, this doesn't play well with SIGHASH_SINGLE which is used in=
<br>
> assurance contracts among other things. Sometimes the ordering is set =
by<br>
> the signing logic itself...<br>
<br>
But in that case (unconstrained) randomization can't be used either. Th=
is is posed as an alternative to randomization. So in that regard, the prop=
osal still makes sense.<br>
I think this move to verifyable, deterministic methods where possible is go=
od.<br>
<br>
Wladimir<br>
</blockquote></div>
--047d7b10ce478eee470517d644db--
|
