Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YIeUn-0000kl-0K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:30:29 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.177; envelope-from=morcos@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YIeUl-0007bV-Sy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:30:29 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r20so22178632wiv.4 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:30:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.79.226 with SMTP id m2mr54121506wjx.60.1422973821762; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:30:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.207.9 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:30:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87egqnwt7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:30:21 -0500 Message-ID: From: Alex Morcos To: Wladimir Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0c5382bc4a1050e2fe9b3 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (morcos[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1YIeUl-0007bV-Sy Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:30:29 -0000 --047d7bf0c5382bc4a1050e2fe9b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Could we see a PR that adds it to BIP 66? Perhaps we'd all agree quickly that its so simple we can just add it... In either case it doesn't seem strictly necessary to me that it was non-standard before it becomes a soft-fork... On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Wladimir wrote: > > One way to do that is to just - right now - add a patch to 0.10 to > > make those non-standard. This requires another validation flag, with a > > bunch of switching logic. > > > > The much simpler alternative is just adding this to BIP66's DERSIG > > right now, which is a one-line change that's obviously softforking. Is > > anyone opposed to doing so at this stage? > > Not opposed, but is kind of late for 0.10, I had hoped to tag rc4 today. > > Wladimir > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, > sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is > your > hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a > look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --047d7bf0c5382bc4a1050e2fe9b3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Could we see a PR that adds it to BIP 66? =C2=A0 Perhaps w= e'd all agree quickly that its so simple we can just add it...
In e= ither case it doesn't seem strictly necessary to me that it was non-sta= ndard before it becomes a soft-fork...


On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:00= AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> One way to do that is to just - right n= ow - add a patch to 0.10 to
> make those non-standard. This requires another validation flag, with a=
> bunch of switching logic.
>
> The much simpler alternative is just adding this to BIP66's DERSIG=
> right now, which is a one-line change that's obviously softforking= . Is
> anyone opposed to doing so at this stage?

Not opposed, but is kind of late for 0.10, I had hoped to tag rc4 to= day.

Wladimir

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is you= r
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a<= br> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--047d7bf0c5382bc4a1050e2fe9b3--