Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-06-03 🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-06-03
🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on the incentive compatibility of a malleated wtxid with annex data stuffed to max transaction size, and the possibility of reviving a proposal to limit the annex.
📝 Original message:
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:43 PM Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com> wrote:
> No in this case the txid is identical. Only the wtxid is malleated, with
> annex data stuffed to max transaction size.
>
This doesn't sound incentive compatible? While gathering context, I did
find https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24007. Apparently closed
because of a lack of use case. But perhaps the desire to not limit the
annex can revive that proposal?
Joost
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230603/a01c286a/attachment-0001.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion on the incentive compatibility of a malleated wtxid with annex data stuffed to max transaction size, and the possibility of reviving a proposal to limit the annex.
📝 Original message:
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:43 PM Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com> wrote:
> No in this case the txid is identical. Only the wtxid is malleated, with
> annex data stuffed to max transaction size.
>
This doesn't sound incentive compatible? While gathering context, I did
find https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24007. Apparently closed
because of a lack of use case. But perhaps the desire to not limit the
annex can revive that proposal?
Joost
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230603/a01c286a/attachment-0001.html>;