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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1XmYvA-0001Fa-IU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:05:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.176; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com ([209.85.213.176])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XmYv8-0000eK-SN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:05:04 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l13so13011086iga.9
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:04:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.39.80 with SMTP id n16mr289680igk.49.1415325897550; Thu,
06 Nov 2014 18:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.159.3 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:04:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141106231225.GA26859@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20141106213215.GA12918@savin.petertodd.org>
<A53D2C60-1D6A-4796-9776-3AF396BEC9F1@bitsofproof.com>
<545BF0C2.3030201@bluematt.me>
<20141106231225.GA26859@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 02:04:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQ6rtMdbq9SYFfthJiZW040dg=qzbNLP=HMmgoxszB8Hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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: 1XmYv8-0000eK-SN
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus
critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug
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, 07 Nov 2014 02:05:04 -0000
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> BIP62 does make life easier for wallet authors as they don't have to
> deal with malleability - maybe! -
Yes, I agree for most contract purposes CTLV is what you want to be
using, instead of refund transactions beyond being more clearly
correct, it shrinks the protocol state machine by one step.
Though BIP62 also achieves the secondary goal of making required
implementation behaviour more explicit (e.g. the parts enforced in all
transactions), and that shouldn't be discounted.
They're somewhat orthogonal, somwhat complementary things.
|
