Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs

A signer modifying the order of inputs or changing outputs when "re-signing" a transaction (which already has dependent child transactions spending its outputs) seems like quite a different hazard than a malicious third party modifying a transaction in the mempool by twiddling opcodes in the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Memory leaks?

The method I was using was essentially grep VmRSS /proc/$pid/status Comparing these two methods, I get Your method (PSS): 2408313 My method (RSS): VmRSS: 2410396 kB On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Tom Zander wrote: > On Tuesday 20 Oct 2015

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Memory leaks?

On Tuesday 20 Oct 2015 20:01:16 Jonathan Toomim wrote: > claimed that he had this memory usage issue on Linux, but not on Mac OS X, > under a GBT workload in both situations. If this is true, that would > suggest this might be a fragmentation issue due to poor memory allocation. Please make sure

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:19 AM Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 2:01:04 PM Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > The proposal is implemented (see below), by computing the normalized > > transaction ID when adding them to the UTXO and storing them along

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 2:01:04 PM Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> The proposal is implemented (see below), by computing the normalized >> transaction ID when adding them to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:39:45 AM Christian Decker wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:19 AM Luke Dashjr wrote: > > This doesn't completely close malleability (which should be documented in > > the BIP), so I'm not sure it's worth the cost, especially if closing > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Memory leaks?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Jonathan Toomim wrote: > 3. One user on the bitcointalk p2pool thread ( > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg12733791#msg12733791) > claimed that he had this memory usage issue on Linux, but not on Mac OS X, > under a GBT workload in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I'm still sad that uniform segregated witeness is so hard to deploy, > adding another id to every utxo set won't be a nice cost. :( But I > have been trying for a long time to come up with anything better and > not

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:52 AM Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:39:45 AM Christian Decker wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:19 AM Luke Dashjr wrote: > > > This doesn't completely close malleability (which should be documented > in > > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs

Hm, that is true as long as the signer is the only signer of the transaction, otherwise he'd be invalidating the signatures of the other signers. That can however be fixed by having a canonical ordering of Inputs and Outputs, which has been discussed before in order to decrease information that