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
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
Return-Path: <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B936E8FE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:46:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com
[162.222.225.12])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B6113D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:46:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (bolobolo1.torservers.net [96.47.226.20])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org)
by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD6CB1A1202
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:46:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org;
s=20110108; t=1446763595;
bh=PczeJh7diVBloTwFPWO+HhkFe6OVl3F3aK8bqoNEIng=;
h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To;
b=HUpf2vCNusG7gmi7wQtAFJsX1FyUg3aVX3EMYeKoyCaL/Dpv2Rjhu5b1r7lUILDc5
4WchK05+gaTUeXiq4ZYKyOjLs493C5lQ5PMqc2THogBRLNBsMH45jtV3SELiBxUYjl
xS6w0UzblTHSrdr+dNw2+8D46w4Y19nYG6CMw0Hc=
Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org
References: <CALxbBHU+kdEAh_4+B663vknAAr8OKZpUzVTACORPZi47E=Ehkw@mail.gmail.com>
<201511032201.21047.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABm2gDpNXGZ7yevFoN9k5nx7wBZX86cH0vJs38DyL+PtEPLHxw@mail.gmail.com>
<201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABm2gDpojFy_a9PRXgeJqH-8p-1KZ04Kc3N-QtwJZnzZCnbNEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <563BDC3B.6020601@sky-ip.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 00:46:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpojFy_a9PRXgeJqH-8p-1KZ04Kc3N-QtwJZnzZCnbNEw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=asYScXtV c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=dFCltrIYHCDM1x7031pMDg==:117 a=dFCltrIYHCDM1x7031pMDg==:17
a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=ehhEumZUPZRtsxQTCysA:9 a=oA0fkXM3nMcnUn1I:21
a=qCbUBD6GZuEECHOs:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.92
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,URIBL_BLACK 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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:47:38 +0000
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:46:41 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Right. Wallets are covering malleability in acceptable ways. Normal
user to user payments aren't (or at least shouldn't be) affected by
malleability.
Problems appear in second level and third level malleability, when
Alice sends txB to Bob which spends from txA which is unconfirmed. If
txA changes txid, txB becomes useless and invalidates Alice's payment.
Looking at scriptPubKeys instead of transaction IDs doesn't help in
this context.
This is the reason why some type of contracts are not workable or not
100% safe. One can't pre-sign a refund transaction with an nLockTime
in the future: the payer will provide the funding transaction ID from
which the refund tx will spend, but if the transaction ID of the
funding transaction is affected by malleability (third party
malleability, since the signer doesn't have interest to do so) the
refund tx becomes useless.
On 11/5/2015 10:25 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
> wrote:
>> Ok, then my point is that "signature malleability" is not
>> particularly problematic or interesting alone, and the only way
>> to get a practically-useful solution, is to address all kinds of
>> malleability.
>
> I disagree. Segregated witnesses, for example, doesn't solve all
> kinds of malleability and is very useful in some practical cases by
> solving all signature malleability. As said, we don't want to
> eliminate all forms of malleability (for example, replace by fee),
> although we may want to "address them" at some level. As you have
> said, wallets should be looking at scriptPubKeys, not transaction
> ID, but that is orthogonal to SW, a normalized tx ID and signature
> malleability.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWO9w7AAoJEIN/pSyBJlsR2BsH+gMwxJ/isiWfJF12LJ9s4wat
Bd/K2Ld+Lyk5BRs+6rQzv5NeeYjYC3FtNFV+z1Z1dMDd752cUfEZqQA9dt9nl0E7
BEia3RSFii1k2L/4xwiIWKZM20qoiykou41J56GZrJa9SoP+9kg8iLq8CokahakP
PLjfBrTylJBsgq34foPPaOH9ckOa/RJpx3WHrRFTPhxbTCm1Ezv6jAZmYr9tTi1h
afzU0YayzLUIb9xH8vfODY2qMJ91uguTUZYCGuopDYhom5GMw8zss0kG5FdEZrEQ
Z7srQmKQ0SRMtiSlg6lg3d8TS5Mv1gIp1HcL+gtMFroi38pJS8dXT65nGjg0Epc=
=ZhVA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
