Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Canonical input and output ordering in transactions

From: Gregory Maxwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:03 +0000

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Rusty Russell <[email-masked]> 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.