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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Z4Gxc-0004Ky-Mj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 23:05:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4Gxc-00024i-43
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 23:05:04 +0000
Received: by iesa3 with SMTP id a3so52119226ies.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.7.37 with SMTP id 37mr30365568ioh.28.1434323098913; Sun,
14 Jun 2015 16:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.147.213 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJN5wHVSK-oW+zVZmEMfyFkd+GUHRhFHEjEmKrdvqas3LzY0zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87k2vhfnx9.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAJN5wHVSK-oW+zVZmEMfyFkd+GUHRhFHEjEmKrdvqas3LzY0zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 23:04:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT95wqvFrjF8-c8vKtrX8ZHSA_heK2FFwnnBZnVomfRnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(gmaxwell[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: 1Z4Gxc-00024i-43
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Canonical input and output ordering
in transactions
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: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 23:05:04 -0000
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recommending sorting of the inputs and outputs as a best practice is fine
> (and better than random, IMO), but not as part of IsStandard() or consensus
> rules. There are cases where the order of the inputs and outputs is
> significant.
Is it your opinion that its fine if the result is that it makes the
usage trivially distinguishable e.g. where it might be subjected to
higher tx fees, or might break some software which incorrectly expects
all transactions to be ordered since most are?
|
