From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jorge =?utf-8?q?Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:36:08 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <CALxbBHU+kdEAh_4+B663vknAAr8OKZpUzVTACORPZi47E=Ehkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201511032201.21047.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CABm2gDpNXGZ7yevFoN9k5nx7wBZX86cH0vJs38DyL+PtEPLHxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpNXGZ7yevFoN9k5nx7wBZX86cH0vJs38DyL+PtEPLHxw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs
Precedence: list

On Thursday, November 05, 2015 3:27:37 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
>=20
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 9:44:02 PM Christian Decker wrote:
> >> So this is indeed a form of desired malleability we will likely not be
> >> able to fix. I'd argue that this goes more into the direction of
> >> double-spending than a form of malleability, and is mostly out of scope
> >> for this BIP. As the abstract mentions this BIP attempts to eliminate
> >> damage incurred by malleability in the third party modification
> >> scenario and in the multisig scenario, with the added benefit of
> >> enabling transaction templating. If we can get the segregated witnesses
> >> approach working all the better, we don't even have the penalty of
> >> increased UTXO size. The problem of singlesig users doublespending
> >> their outputs to update transactions remains a problem even then.
> >=20
> > I don't know what you're trying to say here. Double spending to the same
> > destination(s) and malleability are literally the same thing. Things
> > affected by malleability are still just as broken even with this BIP -
> > whether it is triggered by a third-party or not is not very relevant.
>=20
> I think this is just a terminology confusion.
> There's conflicting spends of the same outputs (aka unconfirmed
> double-spends), and there's signature malleability which Segregated
> Witnesses solves.
> If we want to define malleability as signature malleability +
> conflicting spends, then that's fine.
> But it seems Christian is mostly interested in signature malleability,
> which is what SW can solve.
> In fact, creating conflicting spends is sometimes useful for some
> contracts (ie to cancel the contract when that's supposed to be
> allowed).
> Maybe it is "incorrect" that people use "malleability" when they're
> specifically talking about "signature malleability", but I think that
> in this case it's clear that we're talking about transactions having
> an id that cannot be changed just by signing with a different nonce
> (what SW provides).

Ok, then my point is that "signature malleability" is not particularly=20
problematic or interesting alone, and the only way to get a practically-use=
ful=20
solution, is to address all kinds of malleability.

Luke