blob: 88b1eae2d1dd0b31ab46b199db7c5fafcab43bd2 (
plain)
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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <moon@justmoon.de>) id 1TQ0p2-0006yX-UV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:04:28 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from wp303.webpack.hosteurope.de ([80.237.133.72])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1TQ0p1-0007NZ-8u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:04:28 +0000
Received: from 84-72-69-53.dclient.hispeed.ch ([84.72.69.53]
helo=[192.168.0.21]); authenticated
by wp303.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa
(TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
id 1TQ0ZP-0004F3-Iu; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:48:19 +0200
Message-ID: <5084436F.80706@justmoon.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:48:15 +0200
From: Stefan Thomas <moon@justmoon.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:16.0) Gecko/20121005 Thunderbird/16.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAPg+sBgBtYUHtHq1MnKuFJHc=NGZ4t+SxHDs0TLKmzf8bSig=g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJCouT-ehBtJsAKCUPYgiCJYJ-vh1ysNwENRrSAsANyEJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2qC0Sw8VMQk+BPtwNMRUtOwwORWydXz=C79aLSyzchAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2qC0Sw8VMQk+BPtwNMRUtOwwORWydXz=C79aLSyzchAg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;moon@justmoon.de;1350846267;ac6fb5db;
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1TQ0p1-0007NZ-8u
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Public key and signature malleability
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: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:04:29 -0000
> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
Sounds good to me. I think it's important to give people a chance to fix
their software, but Pieter's proposal does that.
On 10/21/2012 7:05 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
>
> I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
> rules by changing the reference implementation.
>
|
