summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/95/17b80b0ced9950e09339fba308d4b2b294827d
blob: 9c80fa997416f4577ac3305a9fa8e30d2994dbdc (plain)
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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YIi0X-0005UM-6Z
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:15:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YIi0R-0005gs-Ug
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:15:29 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id a13so28614158igq.0
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:15:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.28.8 with SMTP id x8mr19410323igg.19.1422987318632; Tue,
	03 Feb 2015 10:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.20.229 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 10:15:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJDcyEqAm4bwCJsgDQiT14kZiLzmwOgLn-oC_SHZTg7sew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87egqnwt7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAPg+sBjQAi_hCcoV0gecVQAd4PYKzRd5F_nymz8UVt9BFg8O2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQjTq1M6fF5KDiZ-qBrCWjs9z5VKtj-c1ghRfDeK6iyPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjjYLf4NZ8ezK7ML_OO-e6C8_V1i12AXejjrgp+wFB-pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJDcyEqAm4bwCJsgDQiT14kZiLzmwOgLn-oC_SHZTg7sew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 10:15:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBi8_wQj1ZGWUPQ4rRmuPKt3=OY6HcRZmVLqGMeLNwhpPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
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: 1YIi0R-0005gs-Ug
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:15:29 -0000

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Not opposed, but is kind of late for 0.10, I had hoped to tag rc4 today.

I understand it's late, which is also why I ask for opinions. It's
also not a priority, but if we release 0.10 without, it will first
need a cycle of making this non-standard, and then in a further
release doing a second softfork to enforce it.

It's a 2-line change; see #5743.

-- 
Pieter