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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Z4KCz-0003yR-KJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.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-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4KCy-0004vf-RU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:09 +0000
Received: by igboe5 with SMTP id oe5so19895345igb.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.28.43 with SMTP id y11mr17733521igg.8.1434335583383; Sun,
14 Jun 2015 19:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.147.213 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87r3pdembs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <87k2vhfnx9.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAAS2fgRgWZX_O_2O1bgdFd_04xVp5Lnpw4hf=v6RSTXmsbdzPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<87r3pdembs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTY5cqwj5XuKtkD8Z8N1vF=PZMba8EtGkbWnEackOcN8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z4KCy-0004vf-RU
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:09 -0000
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> The softfork argument I find the most compelling, though it's tempting
> to argue that every ordering use (including SIGHASH_SINGLE) is likely
> a mistake.
Oh.
Hm.
It is the case that the generalized sighash flag design I was thinking
about was actually completely neutral about ordering, and yet still
replaced SINGLE.
I need to think a bit on that.
|
