On Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:29:28 AM Allen Piscitello wrote:Well, there's no use case to sign with an address that has already been sent
> This was one of my concerns when implementing a scheme where you sign a
> refund transaction before the original transaction is broadcast. I
> originally tried to pass a hash and have the server sign it. However, I
> had no way to know that what I was signing wasn't a transaction that was
> spending my coins! So I changed the code to require sending the full
> transaction, not just the hash. The other way to mitigate this is through
> not having any unspent outputs from this key.
coins. The main problem with enforcing this is that you can't exactly stop
someone from sending to an "identity" address.
Luke