Hi Chris, Sorry for the confusion. I meant SegWit.
I believe that 64 byte pre-SegWit transactions are always malleable, because there's no space for a signature in the scriptSig. But with SegWit the scriptSig is empty, there could a SIGHASH_ALL signature in the witness. - Sjors > Op 28 mrt 2025, om 14:54 heeft Chris Stewart <[email protected]> > het volgende geschreven: > > Hi Sjors, > Sorry to be a bit pedantic here, but I think this distinction is important. > Are you referring to a pre-SegWit transaction or a SegWit transaction? It’s > crucial to analyze these separately, as SegWit was designed to solve > transaction malleability, which affects how we assess backward compatibility > concerns when disallowing 64-byte transactions. > In the future, it would be helpful to explicitly specify “pre-segwit” or > “segwit” when discussing potential transactions. In my draft BIP, I > differentiate between these two types when evaluating the backward > compatibility risks of disallowing 64-byte transactions. Additionally, as I > mentioned earlier (and as I believe Jeremy has also raised concerns about), > there are potential future compatibility issues with segwit transactions. > I'll take a closer look at the Stack Exchange examples and share my thoughts > there when I have a bit of time. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/8DCD4B60-F1BA-46C4-8594-5CAFB9540128%40sprovoost.nl.
