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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1UR8Sr-000795-En
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:58:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.171; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UR8Sq-0007GC-Lx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:58:29 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id v10so3597434lbd.16
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.7.8 with SMTP id f8mr3138566laa.55.1365890301902; Sat,
13 Apr 2013 14:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.10.40 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiPe25byk4UjMdUtBH-4wArgSVFGVnJgfyzMgjCn82Jxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhYuK79Gost2p1ksytNUTjAHz1REC1DRQaP2UD=cjRA0g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBiPe25byk4UjMdUtBH-4wArgSVFGVnJgfyzMgjCn82Jxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:58:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgS-zaX+imRccY2TtjDxgR+4kgNkmYy0EAN4FJgect2+rA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UR8Sq-0007GC-Lx
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Who is creating non-DER signatures?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:58:29 -0000
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> Actual network rules will need to come later. However, even just not
> accepting them into memory pools will it make very hard (if not impossibl=
e)
> for the buggy clients that create transactions to get any confirmations. =
I'm
> not sure... 0.6% isn't much, but 9600 transactions is.
Without knowing how they're getting created it's hard to say what the
damage is... are they being created by people using old cached JS
transaction generators? If so=E2=80=94 the harm is insignificant. Are they
being created by hardware wallets with the keys baked inside that
can't be changed? If so=E2=80=94 the harm would be more significant.
I think the latter is unlikely right now=E2=80=94 but if the network doesn'=
t
stop relaying these transactions it seems inevitable.
In all cases these transactions can be currently be mutated to an
acceptable form=E2=80=94 the malleability being one of the arguments for
removing support for non-canonical encodings. So we could easily post
a transaction normalizer tool that someone with unrelayable
transactions could pass their transactions through to fix them, even
without coming to the developers for help.
|
