đź“… Original date posted:2017-11-20
đź“ť Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171120/7fe1e946/attachment.html>;
Dan Bryant [ARCHIVE] /
npub1h0…c9su0
2023-06-07 18:07:50
in reply to nevent1q…r8kc
Author Public Key
npub1h0jpmhuc5ufwtzz92ut7erelpzfu2vrfntc2nr97smq27qfckfwsyc9su0Published at
2023-06-07 18:07:50Event JSON
{
"id": "579deafcda5d6ffdc7e538afd248557cc92f75ea108724bd2bf1f5208f5f382f",
"pubkey": "bbe41ddf98a712e588455717ec8f3f0893c530699af0a98cbe86c0af0138b25d",
"created_at": 1686161270,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"eee7506507e946de4c59c91cb3baa47c489b31bb507a0da8ae8433013d8e1ac7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b6a722bc4854d5ab184497ed902bbaa3bb67e1d15e1453e65f29482b1fb341a2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-11-20\n📝 Original message:Is there any incentive for miners to pick segwit transactions over\nnon-segwit transaction. Do they require less, equal, or more compute to\nprocess?\n\nOn Nov 20, 2017 11:46 AM, \"Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\nWe can’t “just compute the Transaction ID the same way the hash for signing\nthe transaction is computed” because with different SIGHASH flags, there\nare 6 (actually 256) ways to hash a transaction.\n\nAlso, changing the definition of TxID is a hardfork change, i.e. everyone\nare required to upgrade or a chain split will happen.\n\nIt is possible to use “normalised TxID” (BIP140) to fix malleability issue.\nAs a softfork, BIP140 doesn’t change the definition of TxID. Instead, the\nnormalised txid (i.e. txid with scriptSig removed) is used when making\nsignature. Comparing with segwit (BIP141), BIP140 does not have the\nside-effect of block size increase, and doesn’t provide any incentive to\ncontrol the size of UTXO set. Also, BIP140 makes the UTXO set permanently\nbigger, as the database needs to store both txid and normalised txid\n\nOn 21 Nov 2017, at 1:24 AM, Praveen Baratam via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\nBitcoin Noob here. Please forgive my ignorance.\n\n\u003eFrom what I understand, in SegWit, the transaction needs to be serialized\ninto a data structure that is different from the current one where\nsignatures are separated from the rest of the transaction data.\n\nWhy change the format at all? Why cant we just compute the Transaction ID\nthe same way the hash for signing the transaction is computed?\n\n-- \nDr. Praveen Baratam\n\nabout.me \u003chttp://about.me/praveen.baratam\u003e\n_______________________________________________\n\nbitcoin-dev mailing list\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nbitcoin-dev mailing list\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171120/7fe1e946/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "8de058e62e89aa33dfcdfd53a429f9e81de10373a940d856ac1c7de1d3ee17a3868f465457d167f4e185f80a56b88da123a1943e7c0205c4338a6b7e6b22b744"
}