From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C77790 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:48:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9A48C for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:48:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC0AF38A532F; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:46:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:151021:decker.christian@gmail.com::61iDds3aSxF6yjK3:dcGvp X-Hashcash: 1:25:151021:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::KpaSM+p7BtCI3n0M:fJUIE From: Luke Dashjr To: Christian Decker Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:46:43 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201510210839.42420.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201510210846.43988.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:48:14 -0000 On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 8:44:53 AM Christian Decker wrote: > Hm, that is true as long as the signer is the only signer of the > transaction, otherwise he'd be invalidating the signatures of the other > signers. Or he can just have the other signers re-sign with the modified version. Even if it only worked with a single signer, it's still a form of malleability that your BIP does not presently solve, but would be desirable to solve... Luke