Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79C4481 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:00:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from newmail.dtrt.org (li1228-87.members.linode.com [45.79.129.87]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CD4574A for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:00:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from harding by newmail.dtrt.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gWN2u-000079-15; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:00:32 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 17:41:57 -0500 From: "David A. Harding" To: Russell O'Connor , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20181209224157.mytaebwmw5o5wifa@email> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jgqfqa6w2fztrula" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:29:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:00:33 -0000 --jgqfqa6w2fztrula Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:57:09AM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev = wrote: > One more item to consider is "signature covers witness weight". >=20 > While signing the witness weight doesn't completely eliminate witness > malleability (of the kind that can cause grief for compact blocks), it do= es > eliminate the worst kind of witness malleability from the user's > perspective, the kind where malicious relay nodes increase the amount of > witness data and therefore reduce the overall fee-rate of the transaction. To what degree is this an actual problem? If the mutated transaction pays a feerate at least incremental-relay-fee[1] below the original transaction, then the original transaction can be rebroadcast as an RBF replacement of the mutated transaction (unless the mutated version has been pinned[2]). -Dave [1] $ bitcoind -help-debug | grep -A2 incremental -incrementalrelayfee=3D Fee rate (in BTC/kB) used to define cost of relay, used for mempool limiting and BIP 125 replacement. (default: 0.00001) [2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/80803/what-is-meant-by-tran= saction-pinning --jgqfqa6w2fztrula Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgxUkqkMp0LnoXjCr2dtBqWwiadMFAlwNmjUACgkQ2dtBqWwi adO7WhAAoKabd20G6EQKeU9OeW4USyjB3dHdYaBOOH+ALP6VcglfOGGhh9gg/uDK 1JDRgpAIt1Sjmjlz8iRDJLoMtoKKgqzKnNVDG3YkEe9O0DLP1tjENW3UKh247Esp XcpUyuTERRtpRU720BwZP/pH2FdAB9HVNRMU67UdzMa1JPiuN450vQQVw7DwUGK2 wdxznw41b3gw5SbxhuEjD99Fli+7nsV3asetQE7cZ+vjkFfrOr8k8iFiHEp846oP oULEQo+7LPz0ctzVwlvK5eL6C33lvUoiM0F1Us8PWdC/fhERDDdC5v28+xcW5Wry RM9f1cjUwyPQ4x9wa/a4PfkDcXeXgYFLuNQL4SxLZX0xJ2cQoidOhnMKhgAl/XeP TQnOC0LrJg7iCWVBS2ojt2vG7LtHqUJ+fLyp/j8bQ7QNk/y1DoXXdWZ/Gzzo6lH8 0A1axwtAc7RMBM0EJjMVW9A0NFNovFytSrGqRlvq0w/z3Agh8A/6xMT2VteietAN zTqmO4B8Cr1kFUj9gPZo41MC9YQeK4XW5gkU6G9IBucSDgOPfw+wnXKdGW6nkfP7 kEvJulmEC6otu3OElz96wSoLSkUjMbg5ceH+heKhU2SOrgKW61oyyCbiiXhVSI1q MeSrrZKzvoV+LMVkqm4hDAuHs+kju4PKJtQsgxVx2UpAvGKHiI8= =a5/v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jgqfqa6w2fztrula--