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 89493258 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:21:36 +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 2CD74E0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:21:36 +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 DE80338A5500; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:20:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:151021:danny.thorpe@gmail.com::dNVy9r97/Ew4Qciz:bINTD X-Hashcash: 1:25:151021:decker.christian@gmail.com::0MZIuUPegaYt98jF:tbiY X-Hashcash: 1:25:151021:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::49+=CioccXZm6YbC:dVCL4 From: Luke Dashjr To: Danny Thorpe Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:20:30 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201510210846.43988.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: <201510212320.31052.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 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 23:21:36 -0000 On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 6:22:25 PM Danny Thorpe wrote: > Let's keep canonical ordering separate from the normalized transaction ID > proposal. Baby steps. Normalized transaction IDs provide an immediate > benefit against the hazard of third party manipulation of transactions in > the mempool, even without canonical ordering. My point is that third-party manipulation is not much more of a problem than signing-party manipulation. Solving the former (at a high cost), without solving the latter, seems not worth it IMO. Luke