Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E983AB5 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:16:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f46.google.com (mail-lf0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D14CD1AE for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f46.google.com with SMTP id o41so14070848lfi.2 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:16:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stampery.co; s=google; h=from:reply-to:subject:to:references:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=05jP9L/XMEZp9AUVHbN1AbpPL40YrPkhZ+4Y150XvCQ=; b=CDWPg2zTAn8EehNIEhvaRPUZMl9U4jX3KE88VWswf0GpVAmXCkiX7spB3MPHuHhIyX yEAhrauVl2eUMpxnlin5X0uoSKvbyW7hW/YmbV5DLxymAhTv3jpxfn0/bQpYm2G3edZw bVByxN/JxrOSGZgysbsij1W5xS0HuQTGcqV04= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:reply-to:subject:to:references:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=05jP9L/XMEZp9AUVHbN1AbpPL40YrPkhZ+4Y150XvCQ=; b=Xo/i7327ZULKRe7t68aHA6U1x4gb7qEgGIEHqLOv3KuDxqHQeoKkXRTNdYM9ZNF5Qf i3nhw7iOa5mmue1lhVVsjzPmzLyxvn+Jb0Tk7k3IkXI8vE5ZENI3jkTFui4qk3ai2UPx gqpDaQvfagsIPHsvLRSb/1N+tQOVmPRgLdTQfp9emCySOUeEuhZRYt5JhS3PhBpyasEe 87Hrkx1qzURm9+AdLOtNq56z0TJbXNWLSboxd6DgatSDMpWGj1YvqC7am66NdwQ0SyTf uh95VVZgc1tOPxXIQEodxDJs7tujK8jvcD4mQ7GVcbcffHGRnn/USChG57a4E6fx3GWi F7Gg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6P7XCXTyYUs+oS3GDcAuOQ2ePzT564F/HmUDVDfPsixOHwq/3O LG1h89aUuDvIAtgS1QZNlXdb4pvbavs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zManENtLPT++StObQEC+6lbUGoQq2UlpKWC/Zj2aK9CQPEqBOtMYLy5H3xh0Ll7F2uzx8MRjew== X-Received: by 10.25.1.88 with SMTP id 85mr3917353lfb.68.1511270211796; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.42] (134.red-88-14-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net. [88.14.186.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s82sm2394586lfe.26.2017.11.21.05.16.50 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:16:51 -0800 (PST) From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Ad=c3=a1n_S=c3=a1nchez_de_Pedro_Crespo?=" X-Google-Original-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ad=c3=a1n_S=c3=a1nchez_de_Pedro_Crespo?= Reply-To: adan@stampery.com To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: Organization: Stampery Message-ID: <15502d41-61f2-9a17-a4cf-03cd20a87368@stampery.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:16:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:01:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why SegWit Anyway? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:16:55 -0000 Yes. 1. SegWit transactions spend less "weight", which is limited for every block. Base transaction data weights as much as 4x the witness data. 2. SegWit signatures can be cheaper to verify (linear instead of quadratic). Prior to this, DoS attacks were possible by using forged transactions including signatures which could take several minutes to verify. The immediate result of this is that miners can fit more transactions into a block and at the same time spend less power building the blocks. On 20.11.2017 19:04, Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Is there any incentive for miners to pick segwit transactions over > non-segwit transaction.  Do they require less, equal, or more compute to > process? > > On Nov 20, 2017 11:46 AM, "Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: > > We can’t “just compute the Transaction ID the same way the hash for > signing the transaction is computed” because with different SIGHASH > flags, there are 6 (actually 256) ways to hash a transaction. > > Also, changing the definition of TxID is a hardfork change, i.e. > everyone are required to upgrade or a chain split will happen. > > It is possible to use “normalised TxID” (BIP140) to fix malleability > issue. As a softfork, BIP140 doesn’t change the definition of TxID. > Instead, the normalised txid (i.e. txid with scriptSig removed) is > used when making signature. Comparing with segwit (BIP141), BIP140 > does not have the side-effect of block size increase, and doesn’t > provide any incentive to control the size of UTXO set. Also, BIP140 > makes the UTXO set permanently bigger, as the database needs to > store both txid and normalised txid > >> On 21 Nov 2017, at 1:24 AM, Praveen Baratam via bitcoin-dev >> > > wrote: >> >> Bitcoin Noob here. Please forgive my ignorance. >> >> From what I understand, in SegWit, the transaction needs to be >> serialized into a data structure that is different from the >> current one where signatures are separated from the rest of the >> transaction data. >> >> Why change the format at all? Why cant we just compute the >> Transaction ID the same way the hash for signing the transaction >> is computed? >> >> -- >> Dr. Praveen Baratam >> >> about.me >> _______________________________________________ >> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -- Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo CTO, Stampery Inc. San Francisco - Madrid