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 2E22D25A for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:23:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qg0-f48.google.com (mail-qg0-f48.google.com [209.85.192.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C382F16F for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgeo38 with SMTP id o38so116199133qge.0 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:23:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=pZVVSY9a1eVNUJcUBAxx2cT9QfN3wvK90UIYsQ6Eyq8=; b=XYP/TL89auy4i83HW0KJbKU3or7BKAPA3Otw9dVO3gX8iljS+J4r5SRJK0RhFq681F J+0aR9+3mGh9V+hnwJL1ZECsI7l9urzs5q45RbmrGcsX+mTjrByJ2Oq/czhZVaOwqCfV wKPQmWOgY2NTIPJ5r0k+pTjEtsYC5FXAh+69hNF+V/tWmwyOooAKxqjH9bFTO2MXVVuC LqT5Wul+SWK69eIA1C8Wmso1KKNFZmoXjEL65Pj/8/LFZMSuNINp/SUSgXMEoT/Jdi6N GhUJflrjyul64TTtT+6yMFgta/S3MK/SNWnw3FDVLo5El/+nk2JKm2+nEuIJsS09xeJ8 /1dw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.151.73 with SMTP id 70mr39827372qhx.36.1445268233991; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.30.201 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:23:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:23:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11353a48b141e8052276bba6 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:23:55 -0000 --001a11353a48b141e8052276bba6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > As with the previous version, which was using a hard-fork, the normalized > transaction ID is computed only considering the non-malleable parts of a > transaction, i.e., stripping the signatures before computing the hash of > the transaction. > Is this proposal recursive? *Coinbase transaction * * n-txid = txid *Non-coinbase transactions* * replace sigScripts with empty strings * replace txids in TxIns with n-txid for parents The 2nd step is recursive starting from the coinbases. In effect, the rule is that txids are what they would have been if n-txids had been used right from the start. --001a11353a48b141e8052276bba6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
As with the previous vers= ion, which was using a hard-fork, the normalized transaction ID is computed= only considering the non-malleable parts of a transaction, i.e., stripping= the signatures before computing the hash of the transaction.

Is this proposal recursive?=C2=A0

Coinbase transact= ion

* n-txid =3D txid

Non-coinbase transactions

* replace sigScripts with empty strings
* replace txids in TxIns with n-txid for parents
The 2nd step is recursive starting from = the coinbases.

In effect, the rule is that txids are what they would have bee= n if n-txids had been used right from the start.
--001a11353a48b141e8052276bba6--