On 27 Apr 2015, at 21:21, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Even right now there are edge cases without
good solutions, like how in a multisig environment any of the key
holders can mutate transactions.
Can't we add requirement for RFC6979 signatures to mitigate this? Of course,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:32:36AM -0400, Stephen Morse wrote:
Hi William,
I personally prefer this solution, since it nails the problem
completely with one simple and obvious change. The BIP 62 approach is
more like a game of wac-a-mole.
The two are complementary, not competing.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:01:10AM +0300, s7r wrote:
It's true that malleability is not the end of the world, but it is
annoying for contracts and micropayment channels, especially refunds
spending the fund tx before it is even in the blockchain, relying
solely on its txid.
Agreed, needing
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:51:37PM -0700, Joseph Poon wrote:
signs the sigScript of the redeemed output.
Err, typo, I meant:
... signs the *scriptPubKey* of the redeemed output.
--
Joseph Poon
--
One dashboard for
Thank you all for your comments. The youtube video was indeed very
educative and nice to watch.
It's true that malleability is not the end of the world, but it is
annoying for contracts and micropayment channels, especially refunds
spending the fund tx before it is even in the blockchain, relying
Hi William,
I personally prefer this solution, since it nails the problem
completely with one simple and obvious change. The BIP 62 approach is
more like a game of wac-a-mole.
The two are complementary, not competing. BIP62 prevents *non-signers* from
mutating the transactions, which is very
Hi Gregory,
In particular not covering the ID allows for transaction replay which
can result in monetary losses far more severe than any possible
mishandling of malleability could result in. Byzantine attackers can
costlessly replay your old transactions any time anyone reuses an
address,
s7r you may be interested in this video explaining several aspects of
malleability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDE-aFqJTs
It is pre BIP62, but I believe it is very relevant and will hopefully
clear some of your doubts.
The signer of TX1 will always be able to change the signature and thus
Oh, no, sorry, it also covers bip62.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
s7r you may be interested in this video explaining several aspects of
malleability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDE-aFqJTs
It is pre BIP62, but I believe it is very relevant and will
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I agree. Allen has a good point in the previous
email too, so the suggestion might not fix anything and complicate things.
The BIP 62 approach to malleability isn't the only option. Another
approach is to sign
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:58 PM, William Swanson swanson...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I agree. Allen has a good point in the previous
email too, so the suggestion might not fix anything and complicate things.
The BIP 62
Understood. That is unfortunate, but not the end of the world. If you
could please give feedback also to these last comments / questions:
How far are we at this moment from BIP62? Can an user send a
non-malleable tx now, if enforces some additional rules?
As for the security of the system, it
Anyone can alter the txid - more details needed. The number of altered
txids in practice is not so high in order to make us believe anyone can
do it easily. It is obvious that all current bitcoin transactions are
malleable, but not by anyone and not that easy. At least I like to think
so.
Hi Pieter,
Thanks for your reply. I agree. Allen has a good point in the previous
email too, so the suggestion might not fix anything and complicate things.
The problem I am trying to solve is making all transactions
non-malleable by default. I guess there is a very good reason why BIP62
will
At this moment anyone can alter the txid. Assume transactions are 100%
malleable.
On Apr 16, 2015 9:13 AM, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:
Hi Pieter,
Thanks for your reply. I agree. Allen has a good point in the previous
email too, so the suggestion might not fix anything and complicate things.
On 4/16/2015 8:34 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
At this moment anyone can alter the txid. Assume transactions are 100%
malleable.
Anyone can alter the txid - more details needed. The number of altered
txids in practice is not so high in order to make us believe anyone can
do it easily. It is
On Apr 16, 2015 1:46 AM, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:
but for transaction versions? In simple terms, if 75% from all the
transactions in the latest 1000 blocks are version 'n', mark all
previous transaction versions as non-standard and if 95% from all the
transactions in the latest 1000 blocks
17 matches
Mail list logo
