On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
In order to make the Bitcoin network rules more well-defined, I'd like
to propose strict rules about what is acceptable, and which do not
depend on OpenSSL's implementation.
I strongly support this too. It is good to
Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
rules by changing the reference implementation.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--
Everyone
No objections.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
rules by changing the reference implementation.
--
--
Gavin
Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
Sounds good to me. I think it's important to give people a chance to fix
their software, but Pieter's proposal does that.
On 10/21/2012 7:05 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
Any objections from other transaction-validating
Hello all,
as some may be aware, OpenSSL accepts several encodings for the same
public key or the same signature. It even accepts encodings that fail
to conform to the SEC and DER specification by which they are defined.
As it perfectly capable of parsing every standard-compliant encoding,
this
5 matches
Mail list logo
