Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>) id 1Ym18P-0004pR-2b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:32:45 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.68 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.68; envelope-from=stephencalebmorse@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f68.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Ym18M-000875-OM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:32:45 +0000 Received: by wggy19 with SMTP id y19so7953431wgg.3 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.97.7 with SMTP id dw7mr5783687wib.74.1429972356760; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.185.68 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CABjHNoTeMiLWkDBUqdV4HJ=nAhj8wqOjD4cypY9Dv2y9HJWJMg@mail.gmail.com> References: <552EF785.7000207@sky-ip.org> <CAPg+sBgAhdgPPjmT5i0PMYhQo=Hk6Weo8tpX_Wyn-NJ5Ye9D_A@mail.gmail.com> <552FDF73.6010104@sky-ip.org> <CABjHNoTeMiLWkDBUqdV4HJ=nAhj8wqOjD4cypY9Dv2y9HJWJMg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 10:32:36 -0400 Message-ID: <CABHVRKTMg3sih8i3ta0v=jZU+fBzBR-i5b_b7C+drV4CAfGQJg@mail.gmail.com> From: Stephen Morse <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com> To: William Swanson <swansontec@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044304405d298805148d62b8 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (stephencalebmorse[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1Ym18M-000875-OM 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: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:32:45 -0000 --f46d044304405d298805148d62b8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi William, 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. > The two are complementary, not competing. BIP62 prevents *non-signers* from mutating the transactions, which is very important. The 'Build your own nHashType' proposal enables chained transactions even in the face of *signers* mutating the transaction. I believe that integrating both will lead to the best defense against transaction malleability, and will enable more complicated uses of chained transactions (such as micropayment channels). Best, Stephen --f46d044304405d298805148d62b8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Hi William,<div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class= =3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8= ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I personally prefer this so= lution, since it nails the problem<br> completely with one simple and obvious change. The BIP 62 approach is<br> more like a game of wac-a-mole.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The two= are complementary, not competing. BIP62 prevents <b>non-signers</b> from m= utating the transactions, which is very important. The 'Build your own = nHashType' proposal enables chained transactions even in the face of <b= >signers</b> mutating the transaction. I believe that integrating both will= lead to the best defense against transaction malleability, and will enable= more complicated uses of chained transactions (such as micropayment channe= ls).</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Stephen</div><div><br></div><= div><br></div></div></div></div></div> --f46d044304405d298805148d62b8--