Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-01-21 📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-01-21
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> DERSIG BIP looks great to me, just a few nit-picky changes suggested:
>
> 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).
>
> "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)."
Nit addressed, hopefully.
--
Pieter
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> DERSIG BIP looks great to me, just a few nit-picky changes suggested:
>
> 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).
>
> "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)."
Nit addressed, hopefully.
--
Pieter