On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:26:53PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > writes: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-...@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 > > "SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE". > > 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
