From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:36:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpNXGZ7yevFoN9k5nx7wBZX86cH0vJs38DyL+PtEPLHxw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday, November 05, 2015 3:27:37 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
>
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 9:44:02 PM Christian Decker wrote:
> >> So this is indeed a form of desired malleability we will likely not be
> >> able to fix. I'd argue that this goes more into the direction of
> >> double-spending than a form of malleability, and is mostly out of scope
> >> for this BIP. As the abstract mentions this BIP attempts to eliminate
> >> damage incurred by malleability in the third party modification
> >> scenario and in the multisig scenario, with the added benefit of
> >> enabling transaction templating. If we can get the segregated witnesses
> >> approach working all the better, we don't even have the penalty of
> >> increased UTXO size. The problem of singlesig users doublespending
> >> their outputs to update transactions remains a problem even then.
> >
> > I don't know what you're trying to say here. Double spending to the same
> > destination(s) and malleability are literally the same thing. Things
> > affected by malleability are still just as broken even with this BIP -
> > whether it is triggered by a third-party or not is not very relevant.
>
> I think this is just a terminology confusion.
> There's conflicting spends of the same outputs (aka unconfirmed
> double-spends), and there's signature malleability which Segregated
> Witnesses solves.
> If we want to define malleability as signature malleability +
> conflicting spends, then that's fine.
> But it seems Christian is mostly interested in signature malleability,
> which is what SW can solve.
> In fact, creating conflicting spends is sometimes useful for some
> contracts (ie to cancel the contract when that's supposed to be
> allowed).
> Maybe it is "incorrect" that people use "malleability" when they're
> specifically talking about "signature malleability", but I think that
> in this case it's clear that we're talking about transactions having
> an id that cannot be changed just by signing with a different nonce
> (what SW provides).
Ok, then my point is that "signature malleability" is not particularly
problematic or interesting alone, and the only way to get a practically-useful
solution, is to address all kinds of malleability.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-05 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-19 14:01 Christian Decker
2015-10-19 15:23 ` Tier Nolan
2015-10-19 19:28 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-19 22:22 ` s7r
2015-10-20 10:30 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-21 6:18 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-21 7:39 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-21 7:52 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-21 8:31 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-21 8:39 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-21 8:44 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-21 8:46 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-21 18:22 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-10-21 19:27 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-21 23:20 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-22 8:26 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-22 8:57 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-22 11:54 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-22 9:05 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-11-03 20:37 ` Christian Decker
2015-11-03 20:48 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-11-03 21:44 ` Christian Decker
2015-11-03 22:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-11-05 15:27 ` Jorge Timón
2015-11-05 19:36 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2015-11-05 20:25 ` Jorge Timón
2015-11-05 22:46 ` s7r
2015-11-05 22:29 ` Adam Back
2015-11-06 14:52 ` Christian Decker
2015-11-04 4:00 ` Peter Todd
2015-11-05 9:38 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-21 7:48 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-21 8:26 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-21 8:49 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-21 8:50 ` Christian Decker
2015-10-21 10:14 ` Gregory Maxwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox