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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCC548B4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:25:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27D9716D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:25:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wmnn186 with SMTP id n186so24657568wmn.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:25:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon_cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=E/+hlsWXkWOVy5iUmCEGrdAIGReSklMoHZ6E92130ak=;
b=Zvq0uXWWr4m6LMKBXwMSiV0fcQ/JkHXv2PyYu8v7RYt4Pe7YP9NA3OCH7Paji+WUje
6FcdgYQG2v5WZitOzNb0hwYisWwYEcOjtW3nK2NNPSd9c4vvntwCbBnSYcZSAQPyLr8l
N7SQ1TS/BZPic1BMO5m84m/hEwqceaV4BAwaUjualuDc8jEtXvQbNvEJupJ3xRHW2W9M
Nb9OL+eEH0riVJrLZNFW4jH4whUQwN2sIKSY6Qbo7Bx4MTASWlbQakxXgMGVUwxfYsuY
WL0JNMnVn0m9Os+QJVQBtqXbUTMdIISvcRi9RJxAEmYlMVx49DrESqfY/I9MmLSszy8o
dr4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=E/+hlsWXkWOVy5iUmCEGrdAIGReSklMoHZ6E92130ak=;
b=OGG2f5Hh3FVzothz4EGDDGLCnK9nMa4FTZRJetv475/I+gsaiPrfOTptwJn9AQvOL8
KuJdeQ34VGs98UKegfcg3b3S4/OCSDf3AHGzD9RORa4ZGkgy+cQuoyP47lDULR7QSrsT
PZSf9lwm75M6/ST6xsKeVBG4UJBqDW3zFhFEx7xoJ5hjHIKJXgEmyI7W+Kj0wSRISeoh
wd6rWX6S+Fbg9ncPvqVWIM418EPP/ZNd5yiwNlmjjgCRqdYAJRSVh+/IlC6zIJDoX5+o
WAM3g+W1UfxZPmKxxIARChae8pyc1Ah01dlOR96KI2rU8/mOqALYskxkv9Crs67KlHAo
UxQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnAfEdfCxJ1gYA4d+any7xzCQ7ihfmk3Onv3G0rMKb03JLi7ZYl0jBDT7XX+sr8w643rSMQ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.146.146 with SMTP id u140mr5703575wmd.85.1446755133565;
Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.204.195 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:25:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CALxbBHU+kdEAh_4+B663vknAAr8OKZpUzVTACORPZi47E=Ehkw@mail.gmail.com>
<201511032201.21047.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABm2gDpNXGZ7yevFoN9k5nx7wBZX86cH0vJs38DyL+PtEPLHxw@mail.gmail.com>
<201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:25:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpojFy_a9PRXgeJqH-8p-1KZ04Kc3N-QtwJZnzZCnbNEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID 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 20:25:35 -0000
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> Ok, then my point is that "signature malleability" is not particularly
> problematic or interesting alone, and the only way to get a practically-useful
> solution, is to address all kinds of malleability.
I disagree. Segregated witnesses, for example, doesn't solve all kinds
of malleability and is very useful in some practical cases by solving
all signature malleability.
As said, we don't want to eliminate all forms of malleability (for
example, replace by fee), although we may want to "address them" at
some level.
As you have said, wallets should be looking at scriptPubKeys, not
transaction ID, but that is orthogonal to SW, a normalized tx ID and
signature malleability.
|
