Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-19 📝 Original message: Nope, Luke came up with a ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-11-19
📝 Original message:
Nope, Luke came up with a way to do it in a soft-fork.
On 11/19/15 19:12, Tadge Dryja wrote:
> I've joked that BIP62 is the "whack-a-mole" BIP in that it addresses
> many vectors for txid malleability, but maybe there are more. And more
> importantly, it addresses 3rd party malleability. It's not helpful in
> the context of lightning channel creation because ECDSA sigs are
> inherently malleable. You can always re-sign the same message with a
> different k-value and get a different signature.
>
> The functionality that's needed is to be able to reliably spend from
> unconfirmed transactions. Segregated witness can accomplish that, but
> it quite a large hard-fork change. sighash_noinput can also accomplish
> that: as input txids are not signed, if they change, the spending
> transaction can be modified while leaving counterparty signatures intact.
>
> I'm hoping to start a new "testnet-L" similar to testnet3, with this
> sighash type so that we can test malleability mitigation out.
>
> (Oh also, hi mailing list, sorry I have not posted till now! But I will
> start posting!)
>
> -Tadge
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org
> <mailto:mark at friedenbach.org>> wrote:
>
> The basic idea of the soft-fork plan is very simple --- have the
> scriptPubKey be just the 20-byte hash of the redeem script. The
> scriptSig of the spending input is empty. The actual scriptSig, with
> the redeem script and signatures, is contained in a separate Merkle
> tree committed to elsewhere in the block (e.g. in the last output of
> the coinbase, or the last output of the last transaction).
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com
> <mailto:gsanders87 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The hardfork variant is quite simple, if I understood it
> correctly. You just stick the signatures in another parallel
> merkle tree. So if you don't want to validate signatures, just
> don't download them, and validate everything else. TXIDs don't
> use the signature at all. Nothing to malleate, AFAIK. Not sure
> what the softfork plan is, but it will be a talk at Scaling
> Bitcoin HK.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD
> <glenn at tarbox.org <mailto:glenn at tarbox.org>> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM, sickpig at gmail.com
> <mailto:sickpig at gmail.com> <sickpig at gmail.com
> <mailto:sickpig at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Pierre
>
> you could start here
>
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io#segregated-witness
> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/blockstream.gmaxwell.elements.talk.060815.pdf
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements
>
>
> There was a brief blip on Reddit:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ngtx5/could_the_segregated_witness_part_of_the/cwnthlh
>
> Its weird how little information there is on Segregated
> Witness. I'm guessing its a simple concept and those
> working on it (sipa / gmaxwell) haven't felt the need to
> write it up.
>
> That it "apparently" can be done with a soft fork similar to
> P2SH is good news... I guess...
>
>
> --
> Glenn H. Tarbox, PhD
> =]|[=
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
📝 Original message:
Nope, Luke came up with a way to do it in a soft-fork.
On 11/19/15 19:12, Tadge Dryja wrote:
> I've joked that BIP62 is the "whack-a-mole" BIP in that it addresses
> many vectors for txid malleability, but maybe there are more. And more
> importantly, it addresses 3rd party malleability. It's not helpful in
> the context of lightning channel creation because ECDSA sigs are
> inherently malleable. You can always re-sign the same message with a
> different k-value and get a different signature.
>
> The functionality that's needed is to be able to reliably spend from
> unconfirmed transactions. Segregated witness can accomplish that, but
> it quite a large hard-fork change. sighash_noinput can also accomplish
> that: as input txids are not signed, if they change, the spending
> transaction can be modified while leaving counterparty signatures intact.
>
> I'm hoping to start a new "testnet-L" similar to testnet3, with this
> sighash type so that we can test malleability mitigation out.
>
> (Oh also, hi mailing list, sorry I have not posted till now! But I will
> start posting!)
>
> -Tadge
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org
> <mailto:mark at friedenbach.org>> wrote:
>
> The basic idea of the soft-fork plan is very simple --- have the
> scriptPubKey be just the 20-byte hash of the redeem script. The
> scriptSig of the spending input is empty. The actual scriptSig, with
> the redeem script and signatures, is contained in a separate Merkle
> tree committed to elsewhere in the block (e.g. in the last output of
> the coinbase, or the last output of the last transaction).
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com
> <mailto:gsanders87 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The hardfork variant is quite simple, if I understood it
> correctly. You just stick the signatures in another parallel
> merkle tree. So if you don't want to validate signatures, just
> don't download them, and validate everything else. TXIDs don't
> use the signature at all. Nothing to malleate, AFAIK. Not sure
> what the softfork plan is, but it will be a talk at Scaling
> Bitcoin HK.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD
> <glenn at tarbox.org <mailto:glenn at tarbox.org>> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM, sickpig at gmail.com
> <mailto:sickpig at gmail.com> <sickpig at gmail.com
> <mailto:sickpig at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Pierre
>
> you could start here
>
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io#segregated-witness
> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/blockstream.gmaxwell.elements.talk.060815.pdf
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements
>
>
> There was a brief blip on Reddit:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ngtx5/could_the_segregated_witness_part_of_the/cwnthlh
>
> Its weird how little information there is on Segregated
> Witness. I'm guessing its a simple concept and those
> working on it (sipa / gmaxwell) haven't felt the need to
> write it up.
>
> That it "apparently" can be done with a soft fork similar to
> P2SH is good news... I guess...
>
>
> --
> Glenn H. Tarbox, PhD
> =]|[=
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>