Gregory Maxwell writes:
> 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
> insecure for traditional
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
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 Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> The problem with that name is `SIGHASH_REUSE_VULNERABLE` tells you nothing
> about what the flag actually does.
I believe that making the signature replayable is 1:1 with omitting
the identification of the specific coin being spent from it.
