Hello Praveen
You're absolutely right. We could refer to transactions by the hash that gets
signed.
However the way that bitcoin transactions reference each other has already been
established to be hash of transaction+signature. Changing this would require a
hard fork.
Segwit is the
Bitcoin Noob here. Please forgive my ignorance.
>From what I understand, in SegWit, the transaction needs to be serialized
into a data structure that is different from the current one where
signatures are separated from the rest of the transaction data.
Why change the format at all? Why cant we
We can’t “just compute the Transaction ID the same way the hash for signing the
transaction is computed” because with different SIGHASH flags, there are 6
(actually 256) ways to hash a transaction.
Also, changing the definition of TxID is a hardfork change, i.e. everyone are
required to
Not really. BIP140 might be easier to implement, but in longterm the UTXO
overhead is significant and unnecessary. There are also other benefits of
segwit written in BIP141. Some of those are applicable even if you are making a
new coin.
> On 21 Nov 2017, at 2:07 AM, Praveen Baratam
