public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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 [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs 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.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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