fred savage via bitcoin-dev writes:
> the issues with sighash_noinput is this
>
> 1. you cannot prevent address-reuse. because bitcoin is a PUSH
> payment. meaning other people can send funds to one address without
> the owner of the key approval/refusal. thus luke cannot control
>
of Rusty Russell via
bitcoin-dev
Sent: 13 July 2018 00:04:14
To: DING FENG; Luke Dashjr
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion; lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] BIP sighash_noinput
DING FENG writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a junior developer and a bitcoin user
DING FENG writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a junior developer and a bitcoin user.
> And I have read this thread carefully.
>
> I'm very worried about "SIGHASH_NOINPUT".
>
> Because "SIGHASH_NOINPUT" looks will be widely used, and it makes reuse
> address more dangerous.
No.
A wallet should *never* create
Good morning DING FENG,
While your concern is valid, the general intent is the below:
1. We will use a scary name like SIGHASH_NOINPUT_UNSAFE to explicitly inform
to wallet and Bitcoin software developers that the flag is potentially unsafe.
2. SIGHASH_NOINPUT_UNSAFE is intended to be used
You can provide a reusable payment code (BIP-47) instead of an actual address.
Unfortunately that not yet supported by the clients/apps most people use. Just
that would be less a hurdle than providing a service that e.g. generates
addresses from xpub.
Am July 4, 2018 6:08:43 PM UTC schrieb
on behalf of Luke Dashjr via
bitcoin-dev
Sent: 03 July 2018 12:13:44
To: lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] BIP sighash_noinput
On Monday 02 July 2018 18:11:54 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I know it seems kind of si
A convention in Haskell libraries is to use an "unsafe" prefix to any function
that may have side effects (here be dragons, etc)
I'm happy with a _VULNERABLE or _UNSAFE postfix as a standard way to signal
this.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
Good morning,
>The problem with that name is `SIGHASH_REUSE_VULNERABLE` tells you nothing
>about what the flag actually does.
SIGHASH_NOINPUT_REUSE_VULNERABLE?
SIGHASH_NOINPUT_VULNERABLE?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
On Monday 02 July 2018 18:11:54 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> 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". This is because noinput is materially
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 08:34:58AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> > The big concern I have with _NOINPUT is that it has a huge failure
>> > case: if you use the same key for multiple inputs and sign one of them
>> > with _NOINPUT, you've spent all of
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 08:34:58AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > The big concern I have with _NOINPUT is that it has a huge failure
> > case: if you use the same key for multiple inputs and sign one of them
> > with _NOINPUT, you've spent all of them. The current proposal kind-of
> > limits the
11 matches
Mail list logo