Re: [Bitcoin-development] SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE

[slush <slush@centrum.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1300 bytes --]

Oh, now I got the 'soft-fork' alternative. If that means that *senders* to
Trezor need to be nice guys and use some special outputs, then it's,
obviously, no-go solution.

I understand political aspect around hard-fork. Anyway, are there any other
pending projects waiting for hard-fork? Maybe we should join our effort in
some way.

M.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am happy to entertain other ideas that achieve our goals here, but I'm
> fairly confident that the new SIGHASH type is the only way that would
> allow devices like Trezor to truly simplify their design (and still work
> securely on 100% of funds contained by the wallet).
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
> Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1980 bytes --]