Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP174 amendment proposal (Important Signer Check should be mentioned)

2019-07-09 Thread Jonathan Underwood via bitcoin-dev
Hi Andrew, Ok, I will go ahead and write the amendment and make a PR. Thanks! Jon 2019年7月10日(水) 5:26 Andrew Chow : > This was the original intent of the sighash field. Either the sighash is > acceptable to the signer and the signer signs with it, or they do not sign > at all. > > On 7/9/19

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP174 amendment proposal (Important Signer Check should be mentioned)

2019-07-09 Thread Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
This was the original intent of the sighash field. Either the sighash is acceptable to the signer and the signer signs with it, or they do not sign at all. On 7/9/19 11:58 AM, Jonathan Underwood via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > Just to be brief, I'll kick off with an attack scenario. > >

[bitcoin-dev] BIP174 amendment proposal (Important Signer Check should be mentioned)

2019-07-09 Thread Jonathan Underwood via bitcoin-dev
Hi all, Just to be brief, I'll kick off with an attack scenario. 1. I am a signer, I get a PSBT that is ready to sign. I parse. I sign according to the PSBT as-is. 2. I notice my UTXO was stolen by a hacker because they changed my PSBT input's sighashtype to SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY | SIGHASH_NONE