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 CCC548B4 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:25:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27D9716D for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:25:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wmnn186 with SMTP id n186so24657568wmn.1 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:25:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon_cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=E/+hlsWXkWOVy5iUmCEGrdAIGReSklMoHZ6E92130ak=; b=Zvq0uXWWr4m6LMKBXwMSiV0fcQ/JkHXv2PyYu8v7RYt4Pe7YP9NA3OCH7Paji+WUje 6FcdgYQG2v5WZitOzNb0hwYisWwYEcOjtW3nK2NNPSd9c4vvntwCbBnSYcZSAQPyLr8l N7SQ1TS/BZPic1BMO5m84m/hEwqceaV4BAwaUjualuDc8jEtXvQbNvEJupJ3xRHW2W9M Nb9OL+eEH0riVJrLZNFW4jH4whUQwN2sIKSY6Qbo7Bx4MTASWlbQakxXgMGVUwxfYsuY WL0JNMnVn0m9Os+QJVQBtqXbUTMdIISvcRi9RJxAEmYlMVx49DrESqfY/I9MmLSszy8o dr4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=E/+hlsWXkWOVy5iUmCEGrdAIGReSklMoHZ6E92130ak=; b=OGG2f5Hh3FVzothz4EGDDGLCnK9nMa4FTZRJetv475/I+gsaiPrfOTptwJn9AQvOL8 KuJdeQ34VGs98UKegfcg3b3S4/OCSDf3AHGzD9RORa4ZGkgy+cQuoyP47lDULR7QSrsT PZSf9lwm75M6/ST6xsKeVBG4UJBqDW3zFhFEx7xoJ5hjHIKJXgEmyI7W+Kj0wSRISeoh wd6rWX6S+Fbg9ncPvqVWIM418EPP/ZNd5yiwNlmjjgCRqdYAJRSVh+/IlC6zIJDoX5+o WAM3g+W1UfxZPmKxxIARChae8pyc1Ah01dlOR96KI2rU8/mOqALYskxkv9Crs67KlHAo UxQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnAfEdfCxJ1gYA4d+any7xzCQ7ihfmk3Onv3G0rMKb03JLi7ZYl0jBDT7XX+sr8w643rSMQ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.146.146 with SMTP id u140mr5703575wmd.85.1446755133565; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:25:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.204.195 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 12:25:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201511032201.21047.luke@dashjr.org> <201511051936.09500.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:25:33 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID 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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:25:35 -0000 On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > 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. I disagree. Segregated witnesses, for example, doesn't solve all kinds of malleability and is very useful in some practical cases by solving all signature malleability. As said, we don't want to eliminate all forms of malleability (for example, replace by fee), although we may want to "address them" at some level. As you have said, wallets should be looking at scriptPubKeys, not transaction ID, but that is orthogonal to SW, a normalized tx ID and signature malleability.