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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CAPg+sBjQAi_hCcoV0gecVQAd4PYKzRd5F_nymz8UVt9BFg8O2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
<87egqnwt7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAPg+sBjQAi_hCcoV0gecVQAd4PYKzRd5F_nymz8UVt9BFg8O2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:48:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQjTq1M6fF5KDiZ-qBrCWjs9z5VKtj-c1ghRfDeK6iyPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
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 <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: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:48:14 -0000
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> 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.
|
