Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03 📝 Original message:Gregory Maxwell via ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03
📝 Original message: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).

Thanks,
Rusty.