📅 Original date posted:2015-06-06
📝 Original message:Certainly, but I would drop discussion of IsStandard or consensus rules.
On Jun 6, 2015 1:24 AM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 09:46:17PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > Rusty, this doesn't play well with SIGHASH_SINGLE which is used in
> > assurance contracts among other things. Sometimes the ordering is set by
> > the signing logic itself...
>
> But in that case (unconstrained) randomization can't be used either. This
> is posed as an alternative to randomization. So in that regard, the
> proposal still makes sense.
> I think this move to verifyable, deterministic methods where possible is
> good.
>
> Wladimir
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150606/11ad8bc7/attachment.html>;
Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r3…48d0u
2023-06-07 15:36:42
in reply to nevent1q…sppx
Author Public Key
npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uPublished at
2023-06-07 15:36:42Event JSON
{
"id": "92aa8068dda84aebe8f3b956f7458b295cc390acfde2ac1d0861aa499c4ea515",
"pubkey": "1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069",
"created_at": 1686152202,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"981f41da2a008fa33b1384e8dd3f0d4a96b7f3bed5c463f00f9032a495226e9c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ee8f1a6b93c290a810ecbfc5ead1141257fe9e27f4932f62c9a1eae355af32d4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5c0b7fca51fd4830b4d9f840de063faebeeabd3bb5dd118de9cdf50a6feaaf98"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-06\n📝 Original message:Certainly, but I would drop discussion of IsStandard or consensus rules.\nOn Jun 6, 2015 1:24 AM, \"Wladimir J. van der Laan\" \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 09:46:17PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Rusty, this doesn't play well with SIGHASH_SINGLE which is used in\n\u003e \u003e assurance contracts among other things. Sometimes the ordering is set by\n\u003e \u003e the signing logic itself...\n\u003e\n\u003e But in that case (unconstrained) randomization can't be used either. This\n\u003e is posed as an alternative to randomization. So in that regard, the\n\u003e proposal still makes sense.\n\u003e I think this move to verifyable, deterministic methods where possible is\n\u003e good.\n\u003e\n\u003e Wladimir\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150606/11ad8bc7/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "2d18e8be7bf346c247f829b1029f922a86f5633f046a6f22f642376f76db07ad424f02a8410bc67392a4017fa9a975e77c1ced75cddacb9dbb480846b340a514"
}