Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26 📝 Original message:On Tue, May 26, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26
📝 Original message:On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tom Harding <tomh at thinlink.com> wrote:
> It's not difficult to
> imagine real-world consequences to not having contributed to the
> transaction.
I'm having a hard time. Can you help me understand a specific case
where this makes a difference.
It appears to be a gratuitous requirement; if I have another unused
input that happens to be larger by the required fee-- why not just use
it?
The inherent malleability of signatures makes it unreliable to depend
on the signature content of a transaction until its good and buried,
regardless. And an inability to replace an input means you could not
RBF for additional fees without taking change in more cases; there
ought to be a benefit to that.
📝 Original message:On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tom Harding <tomh at thinlink.com> wrote:
> It's not difficult to
> imagine real-world consequences to not having contributed to the
> transaction.
I'm having a hard time. Can you help me understand a specific case
where this makes a difference.
It appears to be a gratuitous requirement; if I have another unused
input that happens to be larger by the required fee-- why not just use
it?
The inherent malleability of signatures makes it unreliable to depend
on the signature content of a transaction until its good and buried,
regardless. And an inability to replace an input means you could not
RBF for additional fees without taking change in more cases; there
ought to be a benefit to that.