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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4KCz-0003yR-KJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.176; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com ([209.85.213.176]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4KCy-0004vf-RU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:09 +0000 Received: by igboe5 with SMTP id oe5so19895345igb.1 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:33:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.28.43 with SMTP id y11mr17733521igg.8.1434335583383; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.147.213 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:33:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87r3pdembs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87k2vhfnx9.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3pdembs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:03 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Rusty Russell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z4KCy-0004vf-RU Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Canonical input and output ordering in transactions 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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:33:09 -0000 On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Rusty Russell wrote: > The softfork argument I find the most compelling, though it's tempting > to argue that every ordering use (including SIGHASH_SINGLE) is likely > a mistake. Oh. Hm. It is the case that the generalized sighash flag design I was thinking about was actually completely neutral about ordering, and yet still replaced SINGLE. I need to think a bit on that.