Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures

From: Douglas Roark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:52:12 -0500

On 2015/1/21 15:37, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> You mention the "DER standard" : should link to
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.690-0207.pdf
>
> 
(or whatever is best reference for DER).

The link you gave is to the 2002 revision.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690-200811-I/en has the latest revision
(Nov. 2008) and, AFAIK, is the most visible link to people searching
for X.690.

That said, X.690 is the definitive DER document (if not exactly the
easiest read). A link to it wouldn't hurt.

> "this would simplify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations"
> --> "this would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations"
> 
> "causing opcode failure"  : I know what you mean by "opcode
> failure", but it might be good to be more explicit.
> 
> "since v0.8.0, and nearly no transactions" -->  "and very few 
> transactions..."
> 
> "reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itself as well"
> : awkward English. How about just "This proposal has the added
> benefit of reducing transaction malleability (see BIP62)."

These all look good to me.

- ---
Douglas Roark
Senior Developer
Armory Technologies, Inc.
[email-masked]
PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7