Hi Bryan, On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 07:34:24PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Well if you are bothering to draft up a BIP about that SIGHASH flag, > then perhaps also consider some other SIGHASH flag types as well while > you are at it?
I'll take a look at those proposals when drafting the BIP. I think for LN, there is a single clean way to achieve outsourcability, but may be compatible with other arrangements. I'm somewhat averse to proposing too much flexibility before there's clear use-cases, though. However, if others do have uses/examples for other sighash flags, I'd be very interested while drafting this BIP! > FWIW there was some concern about replay using SIGHAHS_NOINPUT or something: > http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-04-07.log Yeah, I think the nice thing about SegWit is that you resolve malleability without worrying about replay attacks in the event of key reuse. That's why I think it's only safe to do this new sighash type inside segwit itself -- if you only wanted protection against malleability you'd use segwit, and not touch this new sighash type (you'd only use the new sighash flag if you actually need its features). -- Joseph Poon _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev