Re: [bitcoin-dev] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash()

[Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]

I suggest we use short-circuit evaluation. If someone complains, we figure it out as we go, maybe depending on the nature of the complaint. If nobody complains, we get it done faster.

We're humans. We have the ability to respond to novel conditions without relying on predetermined rules and algorithms. I suggest we use that ability sometimes.

On Dec 29, 2015, at 4:55 AM, jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:

> What if someone complains? We can't even tell whether a complaint is legit or just trolling. That's why I think we need some general consensus rules which is not written in code, but as a social contract. Breaking those rules would be considered as a hardfork and is allowed only in exceptional situation.
> 
> Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-29 07:42 寫到:
>> That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a
>> specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't
>> need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to
>> perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork
>> becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their
>> secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed.
>> On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with private key lost?
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --]