On 11/21/2017 01:16 PM, Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 2. SegWit signatures can be cheaper to verify (linear instead of
> quadratic). Prior to this, DoS attacks were possible by using forged
> transactions including signatures which could take several minutes to
> verify.
There is incentive because of artificially distorted block weight rules. It
is favourable for a miner to choose a segwit tx over a non segwit tx as
they can fit more of them into a block and earn more fees.
On Nov 21, 2017 11:06 PM, "Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev" <
BIP 140 looks like it solves Tx Malleability with least impact on current
practices. It is still a soft fork though.
Finally, if we were to create an alternative cyptocurrency similar to
Bitcoin, a Normalized Tx ID approach would be a better choice if I get it
right!
ᐧ
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at
Is there any incentive for miners to pick segwit transactions over
non-segwit transaction. Do they require less, equal, or more compute to
process?
On Nov 20, 2017 11:46 AM, "Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
We can’t “just compute the Transaction ID
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
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
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
