[Bitcoin-development] Small update to BIP 62

Aaron Voisine voisine at gmail.com
Fri Jul 18 22:03:44 UTC 2014

> 9. New signatures by the sender

I'm not suggesting it be required, but it would be possible to
mitigate this one by requiring that all signatures deterministically
generate k per RFC6979. I'm using this in breadwallet.

Aaron Voisine

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>> 4. Non-push operations in scriptSig Any non-push operation in a scriptSig invalidates it.
> Having non-push operations in the scriptSig is a source of
> malleability, as there can be multiple sequences of opcodes that
> evaluate to the same result.
> Wladimir
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
> search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
> Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
> search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list