1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BC3097
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:36:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBED159
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5944938A65D3;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:36:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151105:jtimon@jtimon.cc::MgYKASQKBgtJdyqD:b1LOO
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151105:decker.christian@gmail.com::m4jBHFSbnq/=tm4f:xcSX
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151105:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::plit/0mVcaKKmJmn:c4rMZ
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>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:36:58 -0000
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
|
