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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Sg0kp-0006NP-6x
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:41:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ey0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ey0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Sg0ko-0005a5-JM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:41:59 +0000
Received: by eaal1 with SMTP id l1so1257470eaa.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.29.13 with SMTP id h13mr1817388eea.30.1339882912281; Sat,
16 Jun 2012 14:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.3.66 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120616192651.GA13438@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <20120616192651.GA13438@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:41:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1_R2RE0S=ygY18OyJ0W+Bxyt5Q75bF4J36r0C8ae4-Fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@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
(gavinandresen[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: 1Sg0ko-0005a5-JM
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] After compressed pubkeys: hybrid pubkeys
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: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:41:59 -0000
RE: 0x06/0x07 'hybrid' public keys:
> Any opinions? Forbidding it certainly makes alternative implementation
> slightly easier in the future, but I'm not sure the hassle of a network
> rule change is worth it.
I say treat any transactions that use them as 'non-standard' -- don't
relay/mine them by default, but accept blocks that happen to contain
them.
I agree that a rule change isn't worth it right now, but making them
non-standard now is easy and should make a rule change in the future
easier.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
