> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
Sounds good to me. I think it's important to give people a chance to fix
their software, but Pieter's proposal does that.
On 10/21/2012 7:05 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementat
No objections.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
>
> I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
> rules by changing the reference implementation.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
rules by changing the reference implementation.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--
Everyone hate
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> In order to make the Bitcoin network rules more well-defined, I'd like
> to propose strict rules about what is acceptable, and which do not
> depend on OpenSSL's implementation.
I strongly support this too. It is good to make the protocol as
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> What do you think about these rules? If people want these rules,
> nothing would happen for now - just start try to find software that
> doesn't produce complying data. In a second step, these could be
> enabled as check similar to IsStandard
Hello all,
as some may be aware, OpenSSL accepts several encodings for the same
public key or the same signature. It even accepts encodings that fail
to conform to the SEC and DER specification by which they are defined.
As it perfectly capable of parsing every standard-compliant encoding,
this is
6 matches
Mail list logo
