rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-01-21 📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > DERSIG BIP looks great to me, just a few nit-picky changes suggested: > > You mention the "DER standard" : should link to > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.690-0207.pdf (or > whatever is best reference for DER). > > "this would simplify avoiding OpenSSL in consensus implementations" --> > "this would make it easier for non-OpenSSL implementations" > > "causing opcode failure" : I know what you mean by "opcode failure", but it > might be good to be more explicit. > > "since v0.8.0, and nearly no transactions" --> "and very few > transactions..." > > "reducing this avenue for malleability is useful on itself as well" : > awkward English. How about just "This proposal has the added benefit of > reducing transaction malleability (see BIP62)." Nit addressed, hopefully. -- Pieter