Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BA3C8CC for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:10:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com (mail-pf0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADAAE17A for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f174.google.com with SMTP id g202so21081724pfb.0 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:10:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thinlink-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pEl7G3kFnmHqC1Y1wyNf4ZaQb6m22GKOHKBJYA/WUGM=; b=JDsa2SO/YGDEOw6ccEDQe3Hbh2I90Ek84CNzLcECyCrtSUoR3Ca2PLgvd4udHR7Ray bieCs23TcPoIC4T/YzW1CAaAR5wr/Rtqvvqd806u3y4zLo8hF85tLG8R63G3Xy/mTuQB zbk0KEscbP9sRa5OrGM1zHjjgt216k+y+W+qz2DlIh1mUHfpyK2J+qqz1sIiAJaVnygu C9jUEimrvifbBQVAzbD65+N3rs0qjq3C61KihCxb4aypCCz5HhmoNMpNsdGWZJjDDeVQ GThRtRWvmaQjDXo0rSdXnfEDS9Q0p0VsjCIKRMQCBLD+YIXmQM49jO13O9n2IzNXnhGm +ZBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pEl7G3kFnmHqC1Y1wyNf4ZaQb6m22GKOHKBJYA/WUGM=; b=Ii+bg5kdPlk4mi6K8fDKY38VQhmwrF1mgKtzcIG3pwn33JlPk0Bof3kc7u4BcwZvcj nBJMunymQedPJtNTv18DZmHPWwd70k4jmdb/8wbGziddJh4V2wqYDLJBaQEzsaW2betZ EZlCOCAUCR5Yn0v2y0ZFKjCOydhGSvyqLuaLLRakk6J9ahKuqmAZkq5pmZx74I3p+Nxm vOhIkmhhEUabLRZDatoSa5csdsNAv5PS4mCZQ18/sLL8DC3CygY0Jzo6WtH0nvLdtuWP ws3LN76TrFS5B/gthkYoh+/Y5rrDrZWtFoXfCJZxUd61XKFkwZ/zmj239Hg8GOG4noa/ tMVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNgsCKaE/R3S76WlNHc3gvS2GBqb6Fkiqx+yn1UAxxuCKXS8E/JMbIhultXxFCwjUk2 X-Received: by 10.98.152.6 with SMTP id q6mr38094110pfd.86.1472836241101; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 7sm16228583pfk.6.2016.09.02.10.10.40 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:10:40 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <1317364559.64256.1472791258452@privateemail.com> From: Tom Harding Message-ID: <198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:10:40 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1317364559.64256.1472791258452@privateemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with dummy stack element malleability X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:10:42 -0000 On 9/1/2016 9:40 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" BIP9 using the same parameters for BIP141 and BIP143, with the name "segwit" and using bit 1. > This fix has value outside of segwit. Why bundle the two together? Shouldn't miners have to opportunity to vote on them independently?