Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03 📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:26:53PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'd like to pick up the discussion from a few months ago, and propose a new
> >> sighash flag, `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, that removes the commitment to the previous
> >
> > I know it seems kind of silly, but I think it's somewhat important
> > that the formal name of this flag is something like
> > "SIGHASH_REPLAY_VULNERABLE" or likewise or at least
> > "SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE".
>
> I agree with the DO_NOT_WANT-style naming. REUSE_VULNERABLE seems to
> capture it: the word VULNERABLE should scare people away (or at least
> cause them to google further).

The problem with that name is `SIGHASH_REUSE_VULNERABLE` tells you nothing
about what the flag actually does.

What name are we going to give a future flag that does something different, but
is also replay vulnerable?

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180703/5fb58689/attachment.sig>;