On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:26:53PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 
> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'd like to pick up the discussion from a few months ago, and propose a new
> >> sighash flag, `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, that removes the commitment to the 
> >> previous
> >
> > 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
> I agree with the DO_NOT_WANT-style naming.  REUSE_VULNERABLE seems to
> capture it: the word VULNERABLE should scare people away (or at least
> cause them to google further).

The problem with that name is `SIGHASH_REUSE_VULNERABLE` tells you nothing
about what the flag actually does.

What name are we going to give a future flag that does something different, but
is also replay vulnerable?

https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to