Kristov Atlas writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I have written a draft of a BIP to standardize the sorting of tx inputs and
> outputs for privacy and security reasons. A few colleagues have reviewed
> this and provided feedback privately, but now it's ready for feedback from
> a wider audience.
>
> If ther
Update: BIP 79 has been implemented in the latest release of Electrum,
v2.3.2:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES
-Kristov
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Kristov Atlas wrote:
> Since everyone's busy, I went ahead and made a pull request to add this as
> an informa
Since everyone's busy, I went ahead and made a pull request to add this as
an informational BIP 79 to the bips directory.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/157
Regards,
Kristov
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I think I have reflected all of your requested
changes in the latest version, in the BIP and sample code:
https://github.com/kristovatlas/rfc/tree/master/bips
-Kr
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atla
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote:
Two other things:
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized
> > protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols.
> > For
>
> As for IsStandard() rules - let alone soft forks - better to leave
> discussion of them out for now.
Removed that bit as well.
Latest version:
https://github.com/kristovatlas/rfc/blob/master/bips/bip-li01.mediawiki
-Kristov
--
Hey Peter, thanks for your experienced feedback.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized
> protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols.
> For BIP's it's better to stick to the use-cases
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 08:06:56PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote:
In general I think this is a good idea, and should be implemented; we've
had a depressing number of wallets fail to implement randomization
properly, if at all.
> I've updated the draft BIP in two ways:
> -Making it clear that sorting
I've updated the draft BIP in two ways:
-Making it clear that sorting is algorithmically agnostic, but should
conform to the output of the example algorithms written in python
-The BIP now handles schemes that create an input/output dependency, such
as SIGHASH_SINGLE:
Handling Input/Output Depende
Hey Stephen,
Thanks for your feedback
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Stephen
wrote:
> - I think your explanation of sorting could be significantly shortened
> and clarified by simply saying that the TXIDs of inputs should be compared
> as uint256 integers.
>
I considered defining the compar
Hi Kristov,
I like the idea. Mainly because having a standard reminds developers to
consider this issue. In addition, we would have visibility into the portion of
the network that adopts this strategy to enhance privacy. A few points of
feedback:
- I think your explanation of sorting could be
11 matches
Mail list logo
