Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@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. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
