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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1TPyxi-0007UR-Dy
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:05:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1TPyxh-0003BK-OK
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:05:18 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hq4so1328105wib.10
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.200.150 with SMTP id z22mr3872324wen.97.1350839111548;
	Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.27.136 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJCouT-ehBtJsAKCUPYgiCJYJ-vh1ysNwENRrSAsANyEJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgBtYUHtHq1MnKuFJHc=NGZ4t+SxHDs0TLKmzf8bSig=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJCouT-ehBtJsAKCUPYgiCJYJ-vh1ysNwENRrSAsANyEJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:05:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2qC0Sw8VMQk+BPtwNMRUtOwwORWydXz=C79aLSyzchAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
	(gavinandresen[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
X-Headers-End: 1TPyxh-0003BK-OK
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:05:18 -0000

Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?

I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
rules by changing the reference implementation.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen