[Thursday, January 19, 2017] [7:46:36 PM UTC] <luke-jr> sipa: if you get a minute, can you give me at least a text-"verbal" ACK for some copyright license to put on BIPs 30, 32, 62, 66, and 103 please? is BSD-2-Clause okay?
[Thursday, January 19, 2017] [7:47:01 PM UTC] <sipa> luke-jr: ACK on 2-clause BSD for 30,32,62,66,103
[Thursday, January 19, 2017] [7:47:13 PM UTC] <sipa> (and for any other BIPs I contributed to)
- Update all Accepted status to Proposed (renamed status)
- The BIP Comments preamble headers added to every BIP
- The License preamble headers have been added to all BIPs with a Copyright section
All of BIP62's (including the only-new-transactions) are currently enforced
as standardness rules, but it seems hard to push it further. Every new type
of complex transaction may require new extra rules, and some important types
of malleability cannot be addressed by it (for example, a single participant
in a multisig spend creating a new signature with a different nonce).
It seems wiser to pursue normalized txid or segregated witness-based
solutions, which do solve this problem more fundamentally.
The sentence regarding allowing empty byte arrays to indicate an invalid ECDSA signature is confusing. I attempted to make it clearer. If I screwed it up or can make it even clearer, please let me know.
Thank you.
Previously BIP62 did not provide a compact way to delibrately encode an
invalid signature. For example in BIP19 if m != n with this change you
can provide compact OP_0's in the scriptSig rather than lengthy
DER-encoded signatures.
Note that we may want to further expand on this change in the future by
saying that only OP_0 is a "valid" invalid signature; BIP19 even with
this change is inherently malleable as the invalid signatures can be any
validly encoded DER signature.
This came up on the mailing list.
yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) is the internationally accepted format for numeric
dates. This commit changes all BIPs to use that instead of dd-mm-yyyy.
It also updates BIP 0001 to prescribe the new format.
