Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YIRbf-0008Ak-T2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:44:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YIRbf-0001BW-4n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:44:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hl2so21014423igb.5 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.3.36 with SMTP id 36mr25078946iod.92.1422924277626; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.20.229 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87egqnwt7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gregory Maxwell 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: 1YIRbf-0001BW-4n 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 00:44:43 -0000 On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > So I think we should just go ahead with R/S length upper bounds as > both IsStandard and in STRICTDER. I would like to fix this at some point in any case. If we want to do that, we must at least have signatures with too-long R or S values as non-standard. 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? -- Pieter