On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:56:20PM -0400, Stephen Morse wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
For the OP: Have you looked at how CODESEPARATOR allows the signature to
sign code to run as part of verifying the signature? E.g. my signature
can say valid
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Stephen Morse
stephencalebmo...@gmail.com wrote:
Seeking feedback on a proposal that will allow a transaction signer to
explicitly specify what is to be serialized for the signature hash. The
basic idea is to make the nHashType general enough that we won't need a
Hi Mike,
Hi Stephen,
It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure that all the combinations make
sense. Excluding the connected output script or value but still signing the
prev tx hash appears pointless: the script cannot change anyway, and you
still need to know what it is to actually calculate
I don't think it's quite a blank check, but it would enable replay attacks
in the form of sending the money to the same place it was sent before if an
address ever receives coins again.
Right, good point. I wonder if this sort of auto forwarding could even be a
useful feature. I can't think
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 07:22:52AM -0700, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Stephen Morse stephencalebmo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is hashing transaction data once for each input really a huge bottleneck,
though? Do mobile devices have an issue with this?
Think about what
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Stephen Morse stephencalebmo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is hashing transaction data once for each input really a huge bottleneck,
though? Do mobile devices have an issue with this?
Think about what slow transaction verification speed means. Slower
propagation across
6 matches
Mail list logo
