1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>) id 1Ym18P-0004pR-2b
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:32:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.68 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.68;
envelope-from=stephencalebmorse@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f68.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Ym18M-000875-OM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:32:45 +0000
Received: by wggy19 with SMTP id y19so7953431wgg.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 25 Apr 2015 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.97.7 with SMTP id dw7mr5783687wib.74.1429972356760; Sat,
25 Apr 2015 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.185.68 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABjHNoTeMiLWkDBUqdV4HJ=nAhj8wqOjD4cypY9Dv2y9HJWJMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <552EF785.7000207@sky-ip.org>
<CAPg+sBgAhdgPPjmT5i0PMYhQo=Hk6Weo8tpX_Wyn-NJ5Ye9D_A@mail.gmail.com>
<552FDF73.6010104@sky-ip.org>
<CABjHNoTeMiLWkDBUqdV4HJ=nAhj8wqOjD4cypY9Dv2y9HJWJMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 10:32:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CABHVRKTMg3sih8i3ta0v=jZU+fBzBR-i5b_b7C+drV4CAfGQJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Morse <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>
To: William Swanson <swansontec@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044304405d298805148d62b8
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(stephencalebmorse[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Ym18M-000875-OM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 75%/95% threshold for transaction versions
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:32:45 -0000
--f46d044304405d298805148d62b8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi William,
I personally prefer this solution, since it nails the problem
> completely with one simple and obvious change. The BIP 62 approach is
> more like a game of wac-a-mole.
>
The two are complementary, not competing. BIP62 prevents *non-signers* from
mutating the transactions, which is very important. The 'Build your own
nHashType' proposal enables chained transactions even in the face of
*signers* mutating the transaction. I believe that integrating both will
lead to the best defense against transaction malleability, and will enable
more complicated uses of chained transactions (such as micropayment
channels).
Best,
Stephen
--f46d044304405d298805148d62b8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi William,<div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I personally prefer this so=
lution, since it nails the problem<br>
completely with one simple and obvious change. The BIP 62 approach is<br>
more like a game of wac-a-mole.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The two=
are complementary, not competing. BIP62 prevents <b>non-signers</b> from m=
utating the transactions, which is very important. The 'Build your own =
nHashType' proposal enables chained transactions even in the face of <b=
>signers</b> mutating the transaction. I believe that integrating both will=
lead to the best defense against transaction malleability, and will enable=
more complicated uses of chained transactions (such as micropayment channe=
ls).</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Stephen</div><div><br></div><=
div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
--f46d044304405d298805148d62b8--
|
