On 29/04/14 21:57, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2014-04-29 at 14:22 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> secure no DS means that the original unsigned answer should be accepted,
>> except that it shouldn't. There's no way to distinguish between secure
>> lack of DS because we've reached an unsigned branch of
On 30/04/14 18:26, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Phil Pennock
> wrote:
>> On 2014-04-29 at 14:22 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>> secure no DS means that the original unsigned answer should be accepted,
>>> except that it shouldn't. There's no way to distinguish between secure
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Rich Brown wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/14 18:26, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Phil Pennock
>>> wrote:
>
> snip, snip snip...
>
>>> Is the consensus to not run with negative proofs on at this jun
