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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1WDdWT-0000zk-7Y
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:22:57 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.170; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f170.google.com;
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 1WDdWS-0002Ld-3U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:22:57 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id m12so2114065iga.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:22:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.65.145 with SMTP id xm17mr25982342icb.35.1392225770817;
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.100.10 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:22:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52FBA7C3.4060603@gk2.sk>
References: <CAPg+sBgPG+2AMbEHSRQNFn6FikbRzxkWduj5MSZLz-O6Wh940w@mail.gmail.com>
<52FBA7C3.4060603@gk2.sk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:22:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBizBm2MX2xFWOt7maT-DZirVDOPnOCHoNoVQ_VcNMcCog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>
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
X-Headers-End: 1WDdWS-0002Ld-3U
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] [BIP proposal] Dealing with
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: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:22:57 -0000
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk> wrote:
> On 02/10/2014 12:33 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> The proposed document is here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/8907691
>
> If we are bumping nVersion, how about dropping DER encoding completely
> and using just 64 bytes directly for signature?
That would be a hard fork. Certainly something to be discussed if we
ever introduce a version-2 scripting language, but that's a long-term
thing.
--
Pieter
|
