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
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1X8F8E-00083A-Ie
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:51:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X8F8D-0003lr-KM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:51:54 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r2so1346444igi.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.208.70 with SMTP id gb6mr11058455icb.89.1405716708343;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.27.228 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiTURdRAZbyk3guF5YzAAQebo8yY_TuXHUKYDEdLjDUdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBiTURdRAZbyk3guF5YzAAQebo8yY_TuXHUKYDEdLjDUdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:51:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCDv+JWXOoiU7BvudyCza=9mtRspWwST3SyaDovvj6Osw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@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
(laanwj[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: 1X8F8D-0003lr-KM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Small update to BIP 62
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: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:51:54 -0000
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've sent a pull request to make a small change to BIP 62 (my
> anti-malleability proposal) which is still a draft; see:
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/90 (the request)
> * https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip62up/bip-0062.mediawiki (the result)
>
> It makes two of the 7 new rules mandatory in new blocks, even for
> old-style transactions. Both are already non-standard since 0.8.0, and
> have no use cases in my opinion.
Looks good to me.
> The reason for this change is dropping the requirement for signature
> verification engines to be bug-for-bug compatible with OpenSSL (which
> supports many non-standard encodings for signatures). Requiring strict
> DER compliance for signatures means any implementation just needs to
> support DER.
This is certainly a good thing. Not even OpenSSL is guaranteed to be
bug-for-bug compatible with its own prior versions forever, so better
to strictly define what is allowed.
Wladimir
|
