[Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug

Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell at gmail.com
Fri Nov 7 02:04:57 UTC 2014

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> BIP62 does make life easier for wallet authors as they don't have to
> deal with malleability - maybe! -

Yes, I agree for most contract purposes CTLV is what you want to be
using, instead of refund transactions beyond being more clearly
correct, it shrinks the protocol state machine by one step.

Though BIP62 also achieves the secondary goal of making required
implementation behaviour more explicit (e.g. the parts enforced in all
transactions), and that shouldn't be discounted.

They're somewhat orthogonal, somwhat complementary things.

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list