📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03
📝 Original message:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:26:53PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'd like to pick up the discussion from a few months ago, and propose a new
> >> sighash flag, `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, that removes the commitment to the previous
> >
> > I know it seems kind of silly, but I think it's somewhat important
> > that the formal name of this flag is something like
> > "SIGHASH_REPLAY_VULNERABLE" or likewise or at least
> > "SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE".
>
> I agree with the DO_NOT_WANT-style naming. REUSE_VULNERABLE seems to
> capture it: the word VULNERABLE should scare people away (or at least
> cause them to google further).
The problem with that name is `SIGHASH_REUSE_VULNERABLE` tells you nothing
about what the flag actually does.
What name are we going to give a future flag that does something different, but
is also replay vulnerable?
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180703/5fb58689/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-09 12:51:06
in reply to nevent1q…sr8q
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-09 12:51:06Event JSON
{
"id": "8f4265419c0c779ca72e6dec0b1796e4750fb72732119af16e9e162c2df1fb2c",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686315066,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"663916e8f170f60127f6aa3243b92b3d69f1c7433c345d342b16ceac1b085088",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"669b6097374781f947b073d12eb7a5e1ebd3f40826354df46bfb810a54b7692c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03\n📝 Original message:\nOn Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:26:53PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e writes:\n\u003e \u003e On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e I'd like to pick up the discussion from a few months ago, and propose a new\n\u003e \u003e\u003e sighash flag, `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, that removes the commitment to the previous\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I know it seems kind of silly, but I think it's somewhat important\n\u003e \u003e that the formal name of this flag is something like\n\u003e \u003e \"SIGHASH_REPLAY_VULNERABLE\" or likewise or at least\n\u003e \u003e \"SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE\".\n\u003e \n\u003e I agree with the DO_NOT_WANT-style naming. REUSE_VULNERABLE seems to\n\u003e capture it: the word VULNERABLE should scare people away (or at least\n\u003e cause them to google further).\n\nThe problem with that name is `SIGHASH_REUSE_VULNERABLE` tells you nothing\nabout what the flag actually does.\n\nWhat name are we going to give a future flag that does something different, but\nis also replay vulnerable?\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180703/5fb58689/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "6932a06ea35a15d600b25b030ecd2c5202d8f43b8c913ce32b83c7cabfce5891d1b7f50461d35a6b15150909fe470213e0bcdbe14fd5e73f42ba07bc6e675534"
}