Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:34:55 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sjors@sprovoost.nl designates 103.168.172.152 as permitted sender) client-ip=103.168.172.152;
Feedback-ID: ie5e042df:Fastmail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.400.131.1.6\))
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Consensus Cleanup BIP draft
From: Sjors Provoost <sjors@sprovoost.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAGL6+mHuVgWc9ATjRnBz+b7SJyz84La8q9jeM=yiw-Anh=a3ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:07:17 +0100
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>,
 jeremy <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8DCD4B60-F1BA-46C4-8594-5CAFB9540128@sprovoost.nl>
References: <uDAujRxk4oWnEGYX9lBD3e0V7a4V4Pd-c4-2QVybSZNcfJj5a6IbO6fCM_xEQEpBvQeOT8eIi1r91iKFIveeLIxfNMzDys77HUcbl7Zne4g=@protonmail.com>
 <CAGL6+mFQqTS21cQZ_aU=hXtMaKkw5ygAk2PT9hQpdB4THz9X_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <TD8gP8PKw3th-0DrZznBXrXFILRkwr66wVRoiPC2di_e-NivCRKVjooVZIh7JJSV_C9rJEkKTvudWSG8CJsq16jPhQBjM0eVmPe8rir50Y4=@protonmail.com>
 <afedbc69-8042-4fe8-99c2-279173a440f3n@googlegroups.com>
 <17A67D4A-3EF4-4676-8356-B1DE6B0C2D8D@sprovoost.nl>
 <CAGL6+mE8JQGJErgJH03sz8Nzo+wkgx74jgFWp7hFT0MuHiPg_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <80010585-E209-4042-B6F6-5B7DC6675247@sprovoost.nl>
 <CAGL6+mHuVgWc9ATjRnBz+b7SJyz84La8q9jeM=yiw-Anh=a3ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Stewart <stewart.chris1234@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

Sorry for the confusion. I meant SegWit.

I believe that 64 byte pre-SegWit transactions are always malleable, becaus=
e there's no space for a signature in the scriptSig. But with SegWit the sc=
riptSig is empty, there could a SIGHASH_ALL signature in the witness.

- Sjors

> Op 28 mrt 2025, om 14:54 heeft Chris Stewart <stewart.chris1234@gmail.com=
> het volgende geschreven:
>=20
> Hi Sjors,
> Sorry to be a bit pedantic here, but I think this distinction is importan=
t. Are you referring to a pre-SegWit transaction or a SegWit transaction? I=
t=E2=80=99s crucial to analyze these separately, as SegWit was designed to =
solve transaction malleability, which affects how we assess backward compat=
ibility concerns when disallowing 64-byte transactions.
> In the future, it would be helpful to explicitly specify =E2=80=9Cpre-seg=
wit=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Csegwit=E2=80=9D when discussing potential transact=
ions. In my draft BIP, I differentiate between these two types when evaluat=
ing the backward compatibility risks of disallowing 64-byte transactions. A=
dditionally, as I mentioned earlier (and as I believe Jeremy has also raise=
d concerns about), there are potential future compatibility issues with seg=
wit transactions.
> I'll take a closer look at the Stack Exchange examples and share my thoug=
hts there when I have a bit of time.
>=20

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
8DCD4B60-F1BA-46C4-8594-5CAFB9540128%40sprovoost.nl.