📅 Original date posted:2014-07-18
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> The rationale doesn't seem to apply to rule #4, what's so special about that
> one?
Nothing really. If it's controversial in any way, I'm fine with
changing that. It's just one those things that nobody needs, nobody
uses, has never been standard, and shouldn't have been possible in the
first place IMHO. Given that, it's easier to just make it a consensus
rule.
> Although I agree not having to support all of DER is nice, in practice I
> think all implementations do and libraries to parse DER are widespread.
> Given that the last time we modified tx rules without bumping version
> numbers we managed to break the only functioning iPhone client, I've become
> a big fan of backwards compatibility: seems the default choice should be to
> preserve compatibility over technical niceness until the old versions have
> been fully phased out.
I'm not comfortable with dropping OpenSSL-based signature parsing
until we have well-defined rules about which encodings are valid. At
this point I'm not even convinced we *know* about all possible ways to
modify signature encodings without invalidating them.
But perhaps we should investigate how many non-DER signatures still
make it into blocks first...
--
Pieter
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 15:24:14
in reply to nevent1q…0qzu
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 15:24:14Event JSON
{
"id": "301dbb99079f55245904db6a2e8522f970e81cb3d985a99688657585f1058356",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686151454,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bd724105ae316b349d93a76fd25acc857c6eaea5c338fe45ec1a0cf9e46b9c93",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4347af45b48d29dc67d5c73f84103fa445421761b3fda6593c6a6359cb3f9a40",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-07-18\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e The rationale doesn't seem to apply to rule #4, what's so special about that\n\u003e one?\n\nNothing really. If it's controversial in any way, I'm fine with\nchanging that. It's just one those things that nobody needs, nobody\nuses, has never been standard, and shouldn't have been possible in the\nfirst place IMHO. Given that, it's easier to just make it a consensus\nrule.\n\n\u003e Although I agree not having to support all of DER is nice, in practice I\n\u003e think all implementations do and libraries to parse DER are widespread.\n\u003e Given that the last time we modified tx rules without bumping version\n\u003e numbers we managed to break the only functioning iPhone client, I've become\n\u003e a big fan of backwards compatibility: seems the default choice should be to\n\u003e preserve compatibility over technical niceness until the old versions have\n\u003e been fully phased out.\n\nI'm not comfortable with dropping OpenSSL-based signature parsing\nuntil we have well-defined rules about which encodings are valid. At\nthis point I'm not even convinced we *know* about all possible ways to\nmodify signature encodings without invalidating them.\n\nBut perhaps we should investigate how many non-DER signatures still\nmake it into blocks first...\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "df4c4e60d144d806d5e699324adb123d36859c7e3d531b7f811fbf063a4e54067e1710a576ae250acbda81537e72554a2ecedaaccd1bc6fef043e8b4ca66cf91"
}