On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:45:22PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > > The problem with that name is `SIGHASH_REUSE_VULNERABLE` tells you nothing > > about what the flag actually does. > > I believe that making the signature replayable is 1:1 with omitting > the identification of the specific coin being spent from it.
I think you have a good point there. But that's not the only way that reuse could be a vulnerability: consider hash-based signatures. I'm happy with adding a suffix or prefix to the term SIGHASH_NOINPUT, e.g. SIGHASH_NOINPUT_UNSAFE to re-use Rust terminology. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
