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 278B9C7C for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:39:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com (mail-pg0-f43.google.com [74.125.83.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCEB527 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 70so7921273pgf.6 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:39:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=in-reply-to:references:thread-topic:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to:message-id; bh=gV2CVdkHeRusoAfmYCKz98W5vo72YTJAztdIvCYNZA0=; b=gRyHodPXTAiplIW9gow573tkakjwcq3S75ADkvctIvkYb2qGHhCKDdykQDXYcebvKB Q5svu2LtSA0LvW8M0z0wbMG5TCh+3WkbR9wPbaPRW5RSH0GCy1nk8gsxBv+4LEOLU/Wd O42scvJTU4Kp9DYlTCzrs6T2XCYg873P8Cu/14sTIZF6GHqvlZuQFppfovU5pvvhlvfc EO4JqqOZYbJi7b4cxrl7MP35CQQEdU3fpqVWSGaRmyU2HwbfTBJdLc8IgCvA9KhJL/cK vUVjRsJKXoKjxNXN4vxwhunjtLONZSGoC2UEhuWm+2oXWkULfkmOLnt0WNk+HLyceHVp /Fdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:in-reply-to:references:thread-topic:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to :message-id; bh=gV2CVdkHeRusoAfmYCKz98W5vo72YTJAztdIvCYNZA0=; b=jHEbWxSxCXeOWeuw+RSIZIy8fm1Qw//uLpnf3xHTn5t3lJWmIpiEDduu/1xYW7Zs1i TOX1gJTBiZw6/t7c9+EXB+NIPDvtiXTQ0OicL05A9tr8CiRi5o9n4l6zj5p4bPROJcue o/LtFDD+Zmvox8pcxDeXHDriFH8F+nNLMtk/igYwjQ7x4nTvsWIb+iCvd69piRsoIAiR no6J2UCjY9zUgFRhCzrDUIenu72OVhMeQsEqu4pVIowbPIUJUVRouNaQRr4oCyVVTDBu nCvq1cDnXnaCQ2e7XjU6YLJOV1IsfLx98XIniGDOZGCq6ayyakTpIGBmVbkr47xh/DTn eHJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX68QS9UhTk8rEWAuTqG6WrBk33KPoAIXPPSpUVjWeoIkHU1Aebe 7/RTUDvkQLehfFiTKdsX7HIKQ7SS X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMblfyWG747+S3J7UXAHKY8IW0yOqWZ46wOiYCXqn4XTckz/KqoL6ipp46+c3IZAhiIpWI5z0A== X-Received: by 10.99.105.71 with SMTP id e68mr14174063pgc.55.1511199569235; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:39:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.5.119] ([74.50.230.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s81sm19138859pfg.60.2017.11.20.09.39.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:39:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Referenced-Uid: 13843 Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Why SegWit Anyway? User-Agent: Android MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----SASS60B97FDQXCPYX1RXFX8ISS7FGO" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Local-Message-Id: <3cf690cf-5918-4779-b4f0-a05f7ca5cc93@gmail.com> From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:39:11 -0800 To: Praveen Baratam , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <3cf690cf-5918-4779-b4f0-a05f7ca5cc93@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:40:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why SegWit Anyway? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:39:30 -0000 ------SASS60B97FDQXCPYX1RXFX8ISS7FGO Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello Praveen You're absolutely right=2E We could refer to transactions by= the hash that gets signed=2E However the way that bitcoin transactions re= ference each other has already been established to be hash of transaction+s= ignature=2E Changing this would require a hard fork=2E Segwit is the reali= zation that this could be done as a soft fork if we simply extract the sign= ature outside of what the old client considers a transaction=2E And into a = new transaction format where we do exactly what you're describing=2E In my= opinion the way it originally worked with the sig inside the transaction w= as simply an oversight by satoshi=2E No different than a bug=2E Cheers Ari= el Lorenzo-Luaces On Nov 20, 2017, 9:29 AM, at 9:29 AM, Praveen Baratam v= ia bitcoin-dev wrote: >Bitcoin = Noob here=2E Please forgive my ignorance=2E > >From what I understand, in S= egWit, the transaction needs to be >serialized >into a data structure that = is different from the current one where >signatures are separated from the = rest of the transaction data=2E > >Why change the format at all? Why cant w= e just compute the Transaction >ID >the same way the hash for signing the t= ransaction is computed? > >-- >Dr=2E Praveen Baratam > >about=2Eme > > >---------------------------------------= --------------------------------- > >______________________________________= _________ >bitcoin-dev mailing list >bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2E= org >https://lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev ------SASS60B97FDQXCPYX1RXFX8ISS7FGO Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Praveen

You're absolutely right=2E We could refer to transactions by = the hash that gets signed=2E

However the wa= y that bitcoin transactions reference each other has already been establish= ed to be hash of transaction+signature=2E Changing this would require a har= d fork=2E

Segwit is the realization that th= is could be done as a soft fork if we simply extract the signature outside = of what the old client considers a transaction=2E And into a new transactio= n format where we do exactly what you're describing=2E

In my opinion the way it originally worked with the sig inside = the transaction was simply an oversight by satoshi=2E No different than a b= ug=2E

Cheers
Ar= iel Lorenzo-Luaces
On Nov 20, 2017, a= t 9:29 AM, Praveen Baratam via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinu= xfoundation=2Eorg> wrote:
Bitcoin Noob here=2E Please forgive my ign= orance=2E

From what I understand, in SegWit, the transa= ction needs to be serialized into a data structure that is different from t= he current one where signatures are separated from the rest of the transact= ion data=2E

Why change the format at all? Why cant we ju= st compute the Transaction ID the same way the hash for signing the transac= tion is computed?

--
Dr=2E Praveen Ba= ratam


bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-de=
v@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg
https://lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eor=
g/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
------SASS60B97FDQXCPYX1RXFX8ISS7FGO--