summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/8b/fcb95c9f7e6363e23ad72f89f149b61a300e8d
blob: 43ec32e79eb50a9a82f547cee51d36f56cc709f7 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <swansontec@gmail.com>) id 1YljkU-0002OD-Ue
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:58:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.172; envelope-from=swansontec@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qk0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YljkQ-0004Xj-Fc
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:58:54 +0000
Received: by qku63 with SMTP id 63so36805968qku.3
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.134.148 with SMTP id 142mr108916qhg.100.1429905525117;
	Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.149.215 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <552FDF73.6010104@sky-ip.org>
References: <552EF785.7000207@sky-ip.org>
	<CAPg+sBgAhdgPPjmT5i0PMYhQo=Hk6Weo8tpX_Wyn-NJ5Ye9D_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<552FDF73.6010104@sky-ip.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:58:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABjHNoTeMiLWkDBUqdV4HJ=nAhj8wqOjD4cypY9Dv2y9HJWJMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Swanson <swansontec@gmail.com>
To: s7r@sky-ip.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
	(swansontec[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: 1YljkQ-0004Xj-Fc
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 75%/95% threshold for transaction versions
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: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:58:55 -0000

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I agree. Allen has a good point in the previous
> email too, so the suggestion might not fix anything and complicate things.

The BIP 62 approach to malleability isn't the only option. Another
approach is to sign the transaction in such a way that the input
txid's are allowed to change without invalidating the signatures. That
way, if malleability happens, you just adjust you transaction to match
and re-broadcast. That proposal is here:

https://github.com/scmorse/bitcoin-misc/blob/master/sighash_proposal.md

The "Build your own nHashType" thread on this mailing list contains
the discussion.

I personally prefer this solution, since it nails the problem
completely with one simple and obvious change. The BIP 62 approach is
more like a game of wac-a-mole.

-William