From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:35:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRy0-ORuZ-o02uszqRE+9e5sZNf-OewmsZFoHZpem8mcA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBj62GwsBAEpTPWR+Lk4xgT1snUHt=3QpHQwTpCxKXzmAQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com> wrote:
>> I therefore propose a softfork to make non-DER signatures illegal
>> (they've been non-standard since v0.8.0). A draft BIP text can be
>> found on:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/sipa/5d12c343746dad376c80
>
> I'd like to request a BIP number for this.
Sure. BIP0066. There was also some feedback on Bitcointalk, which I
think you've addressed:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=932054.0 I also had off-list
positive feedback from Amir Taak, so we have positive feedback from
several implementers.
One of the points that was raised which we'd discussed pre-proposal
that was brought up there that I thought I should summarize here was
the possibility that someone had previously authored an nlocked spend
with an invalidly encoded signature. In those cases the signature can
just be mutated to get it mined, and would need to be already to pass
IsStandard rules. A case that isn't covered if if they have a chain of
transactions after that nlocked transaction, but those cases would
already be at extreme risk of malleability (esp since their unchanged
form is non-standard), and that coupled with the fact that avoiding
this would undermine the intent of the BIP (independence from a
specific encoding scheme) seems to have been convincing as much.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-26 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-21 0:35 Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 4:45 ` Rusty Russell
2015-01-21 16:49 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 19:10 ` Peter Todd
2015-01-21 19:29 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 20:30 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 20:39 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 20:37 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-01-21 20:52 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 21:22 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 20:27 ` Andrew Poelstra
2015-01-21 22:57 ` Dave Collins
2015-01-22 0:32 ` Rusty Russell
2015-01-22 3:12 ` David Vorick
2015-01-22 4:18 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-01-22 4:20 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-25 14:34 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-25 14:48 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-03 0:44 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-02-03 2:21 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-03 12:00 ` Wladimir
2015-02-03 14:30 ` Alex Morcos
2015-02-03 18:15 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-02-03 18:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-02-03 19:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-02-03 23:38 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-22 22:41 ` Zooko Wilcox-OHearn
2015-01-25 16:57 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-26 5:14 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-26 18:35 ` Gregory Maxwell [this message]
2015-01-28 6:24 ` Wladimir
2015-02-06 21:38 ` Pieter Wuille
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAAS2fgRy0-ORuZ-o02uszqRE+9e5sZNf-OewmsZFoHZpem8mcA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox