From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F5EC92B for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:21:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f42.google.com (mail-vk0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6CC1BB for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:21:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id x75so159105379vke.2 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:21:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=atsrMOuC2hE32VVQSekefIDDsxe1kHLUgYh1JQCbTbM=; b=NxwhRTrOs5stkGs3CBxf7J2kiZYdDl/1yeFVkLHWyhqjsiE0lSidEh4KBGf+q78Cc1 BdX1hCzlNoy+2UKVJ6EiujiJMkBAcQO4PZuFE2J8BzQcTc33deIZwzgbe80opFQVda3g YdPstX0H2+JcpMq7okU/x3YAPRMDjg/rjhCTJYuJAFJDgwRtSVUMOepDf1r2TLV6iKZy Ze8IoJynoXxNpYViKDqszOcUu8Bm9ftT8z5t834aP4rZcmEa55CyWm16S3cRN5Qtkfaf aw8ijdHZN9NadQPqyNU8LrHP9t3dyHUqtuBruVWzVK75Xt2U4O5rU302c3lZd0eRwcPJ 025Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=atsrMOuC2hE32VVQSekefIDDsxe1kHLUgYh1JQCbTbM=; b=XzvU5SkIuaL8Kp0QegJsUSm/FZzrGC9FI8gwjnwjDr0CGm9MzB+VXIZ+Ves8EKMkcq 5fIzZfqnBhzeXjmJ4c8yLzy1BDUjXX7DdEVbf4zFQR18ajt516PZ41YTnSbAx3Qs+cIF xyMSWazWTMTXIPGyEbjPxbU6PXoBUJKl3mNJ6ieKZNwT1o27Q26UXfcYTqxE+PO27kut D36lR/KvQ5X8Iy+lgCEfPhDjBDXLhoQ1WpEAAtHiN0w5ehQle1tUGf67ubg7659eYVNa zENXuOjuykZxqH2pCQCe/1ET1rwona9/4WcGVkT2R8+yHdv6e8LJOva3hkuSeexN/toh c8lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI5sWs9S5PFhFu02TuNWNCkEehW2SCKA2+J99gBQV+dkTgrHHkdeW8Anbf4BcCgeC/Jmb56twSuEQIX6g== X-Received: by 10.31.231.193 with SMTP id e184mr1621335vkh.16.1485451298239; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:21:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.44.198 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:21:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <93ac7433-470c-d59e-e085-29f0f1613676@mattcorallo.com> References: <93ac7433-470c-d59e-e085-29f0f1613676@mattcorallo.com> From: Gavin Andresen Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:21:37 -0500 Message-ID: To: Matt Corallo , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c095ce4f67df0054702946d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:58:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:21:39 -0000 --94eb2c095ce4f67df0054702946d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > To maximize fork divergence, it might make sense to require this. Any > sensible proposal for a hard fork would include a change to the sighash > anyway, so might as well make it required, no? > Compatibility with existing transaction-signing software and hardware should be considered. I think any hard fork proposal should support a reasonable number of reasonable-size old-sighash transactions, to allow a smooth transaction of wallet software and hardware and to support anybody who might have a hardware wallet locked away in a safe deposit box for years. -- -- Gavin Andresen --94eb2c095ce4f67df0054702946d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
To maximize fork divergence, it might make sense to require this. Any<= br> sensible proposal for a hard fork would include a change to the sighash
anyway, so might as well make it required, no?

= Compatibility with existing transaction-signing software and hardware shoul= d be considered.

I think any hard fork proposal should support a reasonable numbe= r of reasonable-size old-sighash transactions, to allow a smooth transactio= n of wallet software and hardware and to support anybody who might have a h= ardware wallet locked away in a safe deposit box for years.

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--94eb2c095ce4f67df0054702946d--