Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-07-18 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-07-18
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've sent a pull request to make a small change to BIP 62 (my
> anti-malleability proposal) which is still a draft; see:
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/90 (the request)
> * https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip62up/bip-0062.mediawiki (the result)
>
> It makes two of the 7 new rules mandatory in new blocks, even for
> old-style transactions. Both are already non-standard since 0.8.0, and
> have no use cases in my opinion.
Looks good to me.
> The reason for this change is dropping the requirement for signature
> verification engines to be bug-for-bug compatible with OpenSSL (which
> supports many non-standard encodings for signatures). Requiring strict
> DER compliance for signatures means any implementation just needs to
> support DER.
This is certainly a good thing. Not even OpenSSL is guaranteed to be
bug-for-bug compatible with its own prior versions forever, so better
to strictly define what is allowed.
Wladimir
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've sent a pull request to make a small change to BIP 62 (my
> anti-malleability proposal) which is still a draft; see:
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/90 (the request)
> * https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip62up/bip-0062.mediawiki (the result)
>
> It makes two of the 7 new rules mandatory in new blocks, even for
> old-style transactions. Both are already non-standard since 0.8.0, and
> have no use cases in my opinion.
Looks good to me.
> The reason for this change is dropping the requirement for signature
> verification engines to be bug-for-bug compatible with OpenSSL (which
> supports many non-standard encodings for signatures). Requiring strict
> DER compliance for signatures means any implementation just needs to
> support DER.
This is certainly a good thing. Not even OpenSSL is guaranteed to be
bug-for-bug compatible with its own prior versions forever, so better
to strictly define what is allowed.
Wladimir