I actually had a use case in my case where it was possible, and that was
the check I used to get around it, just configured it so that I always
generated a new key when I needed to set up a 2 of 2 Multisig Refund Tx.
It was either that or making sure I had no unspent outputs. The use case
of doing it was laziness in just creating a single key.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Luke-Jr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:29:28 AM Allen Piscitello wrote:
> > This was one of my concerns when implementing a scheme where you sign a
> > refund transaction before the original transaction is broadcast. I
> > originally tried to pass a hash and have the server sign it. However, I
> > had no way to know that what I was signing wasn't a transaction that was
> > spending my coins! So I changed the code to require sending the full
> > transaction, not just the hash. The other way to mitigate this is
> through
> > not having any unspent outputs from this key.
>
> Well, there's no use case to sign with an address that has already been
> sent
> coins. The main problem with enforcing this is that you can't exactly stop
> someone from sending to an "identity" address.
>
> Luke
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that
developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white
paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep
Android apps secure.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
