On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:17:52PM -0500, Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Do you have any thoughts on expanding this to SIGHASH_NONE? Perhaps someone
> else on the dev list can enlighten me, but is there a current use case for
> SIGHASH_NONE that would suffer from it being non standard?

SIGHASH_NONE is important as it's the only way that a multisig signers can
relinquish the need for them to sign without giving up the private key.

FWIW the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug can be used in similar ways too.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org