Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TPyxi-0007UR-Dy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:05:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TPyxh-0003BK-OK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:05:18 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hq4so1328105wib.10 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.200.150 with SMTP id z22mr3872324wen.97.1350839111548; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.27.136 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:05:11 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Bitcoin Dev 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 (gavinandresen[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: 1TPyxh-0003BK-OK 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:05:18 -0000 Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations? I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity rules by changing the reference implementation. -- -- Gavin Andresen