On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, s7r <s...@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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
