On Monday 02 July 2018 18:11:54 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > 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 > "SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE". This is because noinput is materially > insecure for traditional applications where a third party might pay to > an address a second time, and should only be used in special protocols > which make that kind of mistake unlikely.
I don't agree. Address reuse is undefined behaviour. Nobody should assume it is safe or works. I intend to possibly use SIGHASH_NOINPUT for ordinary Bitcoin transactions in a wallet I am writing, which explicitly does not support address reuse. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev