From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TQ0p2-0006yX-UV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:04:28 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from wp303.webpack.hosteurope.de ([80.237.133.72]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1TQ0p1-0007NZ-8u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:04:28 +0000 Received: from 84-72-69-53.dclient.hispeed.ch ([84.72.69.53] helo=[192.168.0.21]); authenticated by wp303.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1TQ0ZP-0004F3-Iu; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:48:19 +0200 Message-ID: <5084436F.80706@justmoon.de> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:48:15 +0200 From: Stefan Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121005 Thunderbird/16.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;moon@justmoon.de;1350846267;ac6fb5db; X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1TQ0p1-0007NZ-8u Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Public key and signature malleability X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:04:29 -0000 > 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 implementations? > > I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity > rules by changing the reference implementation. >