đź“… Original date posted:2017-11-21
đź“ť Original message:There is incentive because of artificially distorted block weight rules. It
is favourable for a miner to choose a segwit tx over a non segwit tx as
they can fit more of them into a block and earn more fees.
On Nov 21, 2017 11:06 PM, "Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Is there any incentive for miners to pick segwit transactions over
> non-segwit transaction. Do they require less, equal, or more compute to
> process?
>
> On Nov 20, 2017 11:46 AM, "Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> We can’t “just compute the Transaction ID the same way the hash for
> signing the transaction is computed” because with different SIGHASH flags,
> there are 6 (actually 256) ways to hash a transaction.
>
> Also, changing the definition of TxID is a hardfork change, i.e. everyone
> are required to upgrade or a chain split will happen.
>
> It is possible to use “normalised TxID” (BIP140) to fix malleability
> issue. As a softfork, BIP140 doesn’t change the definition of TxID.
> Instead, the normalised txid (i.e. txid with scriptSig removed) is used
> when making signature. Comparing with segwit (BIP141), BIP140 does not have
> the side-effect of block size increase, and doesn’t provide any incentive
> to control the size of UTXO set. Also, BIP140 makes the UTXO set
> permanently bigger, as the database needs to store both txid and normalised
> txid
>
> On 21 Nov 2017, at 1:24 AM, Praveen Baratam via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Bitcoin Noob here. Please forgive my ignorance.
>
> From what I understand, in SegWit, 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.
>
> Why change the format at all? Why cant we just compute the Transaction ID
> the same way the hash for signing the transaction is computed?
>
> --
> Dr. Praveen Baratam
>
> about.me <http://about.me/praveen.baratam>;
> _______________________________________________
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171121/27e2b472/attachment-0001.html>;
Steve Shadders [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vp…fqxju
2023-06-07 18:07:51
in reply to nevent1q…zk7k
Author Public Key
npub1vp3ss0h3rxdzn693pxw5dypxh0qqamkm8uwpp4duklus0f0r9cxqxfqxjuPublished at
2023-06-07 18:07:51Event JSON
{
"id": "7f54aa21b4e8255f52bbae901a0fc4bdbf06582828eb6cf86dc5a30c3e59e621",
"pubkey": "6063083ef1199a29e8b1099d469026bbc00eeedb3f1c10d5bcb7f907a5e32e0c",
"created_at": 1686161271,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"eee7506507e946de4c59c91cb3baa47c489b31bb507a0da8ae8433013d8e1ac7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"579deafcda5d6ffdc7e538afd248557cc92f75ea108724bd2bf1f5208f5f382f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"bbe41ddf98a712e588455717ec8f3f0893c530699af0a98cbe86c0af0138b25d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-11-21\n📝 Original message:There is incentive because of artificially distorted block weight rules. It\nis favourable for a miner to choose a segwit tx over a non segwit tx as\nthey can fit more of them into a block and earn more fees.\n\nOn Nov 21, 2017 11:06 PM, \"Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Is there any incentive for miners to pick segwit transactions over\n\u003e non-segwit transaction. Do they require less, equal, or more compute to\n\u003e process?\n\u003e\n\u003e On Nov 20, 2017 11:46 AM, \"Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e We can’t “just compute the Transaction ID the same way the hash for\n\u003e signing the transaction is computed” because with different SIGHASH flags,\n\u003e there are 6 (actually 256) ways to hash a transaction.\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, changing the definition of TxID is a hardfork change, i.e. everyone\n\u003e are required to upgrade or a chain split will happen.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is possible to use “normalised TxID” (BIP140) to fix malleability\n\u003e issue. As a softfork, BIP140 doesn’t change the definition of TxID.\n\u003e Instead, the normalised txid (i.e. txid with scriptSig removed) is used\n\u003e when making signature. Comparing with segwit (BIP141), BIP140 does not have\n\u003e the side-effect of block size increase, and doesn’t provide any incentive\n\u003e to control the size of UTXO set. Also, BIP140 makes the UTXO set\n\u003e permanently bigger, as the database needs to store both txid and normalised\n\u003e txid\n\u003e\n\u003e On 21 Nov 2017, at 1:24 AM, Praveen Baratam via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Bitcoin Noob here. Please forgive my ignorance.\n\u003e\n\u003e From what I understand, in SegWit, the transaction needs to be serialized\n\u003e into a data structure that is different from the current one where\n\u003e signatures are separated from the rest of the transaction data.\n\u003e\n\u003e Why change the format at all? Why cant we just compute the Transaction ID\n\u003e the same way the hash for signing the transaction is computed?\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Dr. Praveen Baratam\n\u003e\n\u003e about.me \u003chttp://about.me/praveen.baratam\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171121/27e2b472/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "753bfe86848c6c19985cacfc32ba0d4a501dce4abc305a41f6a7fce8d7e0c7f1020acb1cb25f3ae47573e8fc7ec96780077c93462ac3cc2b05dc6edc9c0fb2f1"
}