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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14D6D258
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:14:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com
[209.85.213.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD57063
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:14:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so94667902igb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 03:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=FuGiaVYBrGfmgVuU/q+fOmLB5Zo2jaDRfCO8m7l5m8M=;
b=hPN/BNrcjdJtLaP/9yVxTbdqF7/OEAljmUb0bzyP2JDwOMT0yjukSyclR0Q9UROoao
w/YwnLUJ1FaUyM9H40b4Ny93y7DYBEcHYxcAij6iUPrcgCXjuTxMbT1CHVzmPy9dKl6L
Xh+E5YTI3oNpSGjkAgZU7PbpjpAd2VnkaV+gRvTnjOCfCcgQngl1+wRBOIB7mj4CahZj
lCqI9zhDgE5rByP2sJhnLAd7rEZqZzgfLkUmIPNKJhltMvBg0hAaWAO9NU6wYYB9paZP
Pcq6wo8Rqwl9gKq4118yzOiK5EsN3kSL0vr/X55JcOmAD8az8xNBXDjF4XQefLPUT9Cg
zbqQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.128.163 with SMTP id np3mr19667154igb.62.1445422441203;
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 03:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.23.197 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 03:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALxbBHV14BW+S809rX0TuAjB65b90=1bnN6pondQO6qWVPi3+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALxbBHU+kdEAh_4+B663vknAAr8OKZpUzVTACORPZi47E=Ehkw@mail.gmail.com>
<201510210618.56159.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgT4DU1MuOwo0Qr4yMNRamajD=KrOVP93pzApWMpry-Srg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR7X2j9buFQXvgmWZCfoasRa=nLB5efnu-ZnqFZC+SeuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALxbBHV14BW+S809rX0TuAjB65b90=1bnN6pondQO6qWVPi3+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:14:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSPn9WeC+aw1OSyoRNbO3gTJTnTe6cwuOb0ydCNs95A4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:14:02 -0000
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Christian Decker
<decker.christian@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't that sort of what this BIP describes as well? Except that we use the
> scriptSig to transport the signatures internally to the transactions and
> strip them when it comes to signing/checking? The wire format and transport
> of transactions do not change so old clients continue to fetch and process
> transactions as before, they just can't verify the TX. Blocks still
> reference the instance but verification uses the stripped TX with the
> signatures on the side, etc.
"sort of"
Using the sighash normalization doesn't allow creating a utxo set or
scanning the blockchain while only transferring ~1/3rd of the data
(allowing for reduced security fast start, and private lite wallets);
it requires txin ID rewriting when the witness changes on a parent
transaction; it requires hashing each transaction multiple times (for
the normalized ID, and the old ID), it requires storing two IDs for
every transaction in the UTXO set. -- but indeed, it's easier to
deploy (though not infinitely easier as I thought before).
|
