From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2GL-0003xe-Sk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:52:29 +0000 Received: from mail-bn1on0134.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.110.134] helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YE2GK-0003IX-53 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:52:29 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.230] (209.6.53.207) by DM2PR06MB624.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.177.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.59.20; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:52:19 +0000 Message-ID: <54C0117C.6050505@bitcoinarmory.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:52:12 -0500 From: Douglas Roark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [209.6.53.207] X-ClientProxiedBy: CO2PR11CA0005.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.141.242.143) To DM2PR06MB624.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.177.153) Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=doug@bitcoinarmory.com; X-DmarcAction-Test: None X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005004);SRVR:DM2PR06MB624; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(601004);SRVR:DM2PR06MB624; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04631F8F77 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(6049001)(189002)(479174004)(199003)(243025005)(51704005)(86362001)(92566002)(64706001)(66066001)(23746002)(575784001)(77096005)(122386002)(64126003)(80316001)(2351001)(19580405001)(117156001)(50466002)(107886001)(42186005)(105586002)(551934003)(33656002)(2950100001)(101416001)(59896002)(68736005)(106356001)(54356999)(83506001)(450100001)(77156002)(19580395003)(50986999)(47776003)(65806001)(561944003)(65956001)(65816999)(40100003)(15975445007)(87976001)(46102003)(110136001)(76176999)(97736003)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR06MB624; H:[192.168.1.230]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: bitcoinarmory.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR06MB624; X-OriginatorOrg: bitcoinarmory.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2015 20:52:19.3925 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR06MB624 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [157.56.110.134 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YE2GK-0003IX-53 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures 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: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:52:30 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 2015/1/21 15:37, Gavin Andresen wrote: > You mention the "DER standard" : should link to > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.690-0207.pdf > > (or whatever is best reference for DER). The link you gave is to the 2002 revision. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690-200811-I/en has the latest revision (Nov. 2008) and, AFAIK, is the most visible link to people searching for X.690. That said, X.690 is the definitive DER document (if not exactly the easiest read). A link to it wouldn't hurt. > "this would simplify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations" > --> "this would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations" > > "causing opcode failure" : I know what you mean by "opcode > failure", but it might be good to be more explicit. > > "since v0.8.0, and nearly no transactions" --> "and very few > transactions..." > > "reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itself as well" > : awkward English. How about just "This proposal has the added > benefit of reducing transaction malleability (see BIP62)." These all look good to me. - --- Douglas Roark Senior Developer Armory Technologies, Inc. doug@bitcoinarmory.com PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUwBF8AAoJEGybVGGSrcDXBxcP/j9dKIeXkOvDFgSzON2hmjxT nzpPcxovGt+ds1KqHMtuMm8+Mmc/Z8kOhKWzgQKYlxq8eQayQ4X/DUr97IY248NX udVM6vEp/azPkXLOQnO6POpv8Il6twyuYGvFAHLiYe9k9qMfdSKZetx5xFKVBsuj DhRY2TnWC7/OXNUrT7H5TPHDaGHyXeJ47XSOVjGQ/qxdczIzvmt11amZ/Vn2+uXh Rvz+0CzbpXYaqYB04ZnIv5lxknmjWGbxPdht/SoOly8INehQacWnwUNZJpilKb6x qEpbDGNxW2zHEFgfNHmtr9PCBN8KyiVnTt+VZpNNl7PJCxZiK6uiwyNxsmOBhBtm Hrsvxb9GqEO/6PKesEo+Hi+6hhzzQRC6Xrf85SaFMzw9UjKuuRhstxx7XhudKFkN lBJcxd40G7kWk0Gv+YQmhFUyXUBqloEFGrFlzWniFKaJGzZs5D0JPd83DsPI4RuT 0M63YabL8qplYN8vnyUXabFpzglvQdAFqZS2GsO6zwAeWrqxsojpcEpikj4T+izR W1TzaRDdm5pEaMMxvb6wFIgO32uAjN1a8GrRj+uk5cxuiOuk/C4Ii18FYhqEtDNd Gv80rPxWEOxbCoSqH6igPnySw3ePFLBzgC4eSLBTnqfKYltd8fTeS9wGy47+L1YO qb5K/xlqt+REOdbTGLHi =MNXG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----