{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-01-21\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e DERSIG BIP looks great to me, just a few nit-picky changes suggested:\n\u003e\n\u003e You mention the \"DER standard\" : should link to\n\u003e http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.690-0207.pdf (or\n\u003e whatever is best reference for DER).\n\u003e\n\u003e \"this would simplify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations\"  --\u003e\n\u003e \"this would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations\"\n\u003e\n\u003e \"causing opcode failure\"  : I know what you mean by \"opcode failure\", but it\n\u003e might be good to be more explicit.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"since v0.8.0, and nearly no transactions\" --\u003e  \"and very few\n\u003e transactions...\"\n\u003e\n\u003e \"reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itself as well\"  :\n\u003e awkward English. How about just \"This proposal has the added benefit of\n\u003e reducing transaction malleability (see BIP62).\"\n\nNit addressed, hopefully.\n\n-- \nPieter"}