In-Reply-To: <CAAQs3wuDPktHc6kiZXqTaatOheX4KP=TRgje0_-ED5h8iNs-MA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAQs3wuDPktHc6kiZXqTaatOheX4KP=TRgje0_-ED5h8iNs-MA@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Why SegWit Anyway?
User-Agent: Android
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----SASS60B97FDQXCPYX1RXFX8ISS7FGO"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:39:11 -0800
To: Praveen Baratam <praveen.baratam@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <3cf690cf-5918-4779-b4f0-a05f7ca5cc93@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why SegWit Anyway?
Precedence: list

------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 <bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg> 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 <http:/=
/about=2Eme/praveen=2Ebaratam>
>
>
>---------------------------------------=
---------------------------------
>
>______________________________________=
_________
>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

<html><head></head><body><div dir=3D"auto">Hello Praveen<br><br></div>
<div=
 dir=3D"auto">You're absolutely right=2E We could refer to transactions by =
the hash that gets signed=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">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<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">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<br><br></div>
<div d=
ir=3D"auto">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<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">Cheers<br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">Ar=
iel Lorenzo-Luaces<br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote" >On Nov 20, 2017, a=
t 9:29 AM, Praveen Baratam via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinu=
xfoundation=2Eorg</a>&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); pad=
ding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"font-family:Verdana,=
arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">Bitcoin Noob here=2E Please forgive my ign=
orance=2E</span></div><span style=3D"font-family:Verdana,arial,sans-serif;f=
ont-size:14px"><div><span style=3D"font-family:Verdana,arial,sans-serif;fon=
t-size:14px"><br></span></div>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</span><div><span style=3D"font-family:Verdana,arial,sans-serif;=
font-size:14px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:Verdana,ar=
ial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">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?</span><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=
=3D"gmail_signature"><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sa=
ns-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Dr=2E Praveen Ba=
ratam</div><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;f=
ont-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></div><div style=3D"co=
lor:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-co=
lor:rgb(255,255,255)"><a href=3D"http://about=2Eme/praveen=2Ebaratam" style=
=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">about=2Eme</a></div></div>
</di=
v></div>
<pre class=3D"blue"><hr><br>bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>bitcoin-de=
v@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg<br><a href=3D"https://lists=2Elinuxfoundati=
on=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eor=
g/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></pre></blockquote></div></body></htm=
l>
------SASS60B97FDQXCPYX1RXFX8ISS7FGO--