📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03
📝 Original message: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).
Thanks,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-07 18:13:24
in reply to nevent1q…pzen
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-07 18:13:24Event JSON
{
"id": "228ceae33e0957d49c1d64aa935c955477e68a4e770fcfc972fbff8daa9ca220",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686161604,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"aef133836cd9f7a03a77e6d43d00b9bebcec7054b6cafb900df6e2a7fb85c8b8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a7fc2e8195e2394a31c267e51e49208a1adc54741542e3c99ce08c6445763879",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03\n📝 Original message:Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e writes:\n\u003e On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'd like to pick up the discussion from a few months ago, and propose a new\n\u003e\u003e sighash flag, `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`, that removes the commitment to the previous\n\u003e\n\u003e I know it seems kind of silly, but I think it's somewhat important\n\u003e that the formal name of this flag is something like\n\u003e \"SIGHASH_REPLAY_VULNERABLE\" or likewise or at least\n\u003e \"SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE\".\n\nI agree with the DO_NOT_WANT-style naming. REUSE_VULNERABLE seems to\ncapture it: the word VULNERABLE should scare people away (or at least\ncause them to google further).\n\nThanks,\nRusty.",
"sig": "24a123b7548ca7c90072fe83ab9ba88ea75dab4e21c751b63d9b0924c4cabad6647d966b8b961cf3e8c12260fe71c92d49105ba2dce3c0a25cfbefef2e1a00c2"
}