summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/bip-0062.mediawiki
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2017-01-19BIPs 30, 32, 62, 66, and 103: License under BSD-2-Clause termsLuke Dashjr
[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)
2016-11-30Promote BIP 2 Draft->Active, and implement itLuke Dashjr
- 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
2016-11-30Promote BIP 123 Draft->Active, and implement itLuke Dashjr
2015-11-17Mark BIP62 as withdrawnPieter Wuille
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.
2015-10-02BIP0062: Add a warning about its undeployable statusLuke Dashjr
2015-07-28Minor grammatical changeDouglas Roark
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.
2015-07-28Minor: BIP62: spellingPeter Todd
2015-03-11Merge pull request #132 from ↵Wladimir J. van der Laan
petertodd/bip62-compact-validly-encoded-invalid-sigs BIP62: Make OP_0 a validly encoded signature
2015-02-09Fix broken source code link.Douglas Roark
2015-01-09BIP62: Make OP_0 a validly encoded signaturePeter Todd
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.
2014-12-06Add explicit note about OpenSSL wrt low S valuesAndy Alness
2014-09-22BIP62: Reorder rules and clarifyPieter Wuille
2014-07-18Restructure and make rules 2 and 4 unconditionalPieter Wuille
2014-04-05Change date format to ISO 8601Wladimir J. van der Laan
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.
2014-03-12Add draft BIP62Pieter Wuille