{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-01-21\n📝 Original message:DERSIG BIP looks great to me, just a few nit-picky changes suggested:\n\nYou mention the \"DER standard\" : should link to\nhttp://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.690-0207.pdf (or\nwhatever is best reference for DER).\n\n\"this would simplify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations\"  --\u003e\n\"this would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations\"\n\n\"causing opcode failure\"  : I know what you mean by \"opcode failure\", but\nit might be good to be more explicit.\n\n\"since v0.8.0, and nearly no transactions\" --\u003e  \"and very few\ntransactions...\"\n\n\"reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itself as well\"  :\nawkward English. How about just \"This proposal has the added benefit of\nreducing transaction malleability (see BIP62).\"\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150121/c90302a5/attachment.html\u003e"}