From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with OP_IF and OP_NOTIF malleability in P2WSH
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:43:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160816194332.GA5888@fedora-21-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201608161937.20748.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1314 bytes --]
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 07:37:19PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 5:53:08 PM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > A new BIP is prepared to deal with OP_IF and OP_NOTIF malleability in
> > P2WSH:
> > https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/minimalif/bip-minimalif.mediawiki
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8526
>
> I am not sure this makes sense. SegWit transactions are already non-malleable
> due to skipping the witness data in calculating the transaction id. What is
> the benefit to this?
SegWit txids aren't malleable, but segwit transactions as a whole still are.
For instance, I could mess with a segwit transaction by replacing part of the
witness that is used as an argument to an OP_IF with a much larger push,
potentially making the transaction larger, thus making it not get mined due to
the higher fee. There are also potential legal issues if someone replaces a
push with data where posession in your jurisdiction is illegal.
Having said that, a better approach may be a separate CHECKBOOLVERIFY opcode
that fails unless the top item on the stack is a minimally encoded true or
false value, to allow script writers to opt into this behavior; it's not always
ideal.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-16 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-16 17:53 Johnson Lau
2016-08-16 19:37 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-08-16 19:43 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2016-08-16 21:58 ` Joseph Poon
2016-08-16 22:23 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-08-16 22:30 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-08-16 22:36 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-08-16 22:39 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-08-16 22:52 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-08-17 0:18 ` Gregory Maxwell
2016-08-17 0:27 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-08-17 2:30 ` Peter Todd
2016-08-17 3:02 ` Johnson Lau
2016-08-17 4:40 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-08-17 10:15 ` Johnson Lau
2016-08-18 0:11 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgQ=Z+xmg0DcANV4vhp+XhpL1Vz0HNkJwNGdHTxtK1q1kg@mail.gmail.com>
2016-08-18 0:33 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-08-18 3:00 ` Peter Todd
2016-09-05 14:55 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-09-01 11:39 ` Johnson Lau
2016-09-05 1:32 ` Rusty Russell
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=20160816194332.GA5888@fedora-21-dvm \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
/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