📅 Original date posted:2014-02-12
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:27:52 PM Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 08:44 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:
> > Changing the protocol to use these static IDs is a pretty fundamental
> > change that would never happen in Bitcoin. But they can still be
> > useful at the application level to mitigate these issues.
>
> Not to mention that it would be potentially very insecure to have
> consensus depend on data (scriptSigs) which are not hashed in the Merkle
> structure of a block.
>
> Not that anyone on this list has suggested such a change, but I've seen
> it raised multiple times on the forum....
This would be a problem if it was used in the merkle tree, but I'm pretty sure
using it for input selection would be pretty safe. One could even avoid the
index by simply using the hashScript as the sole input value; then even
CoinJoins would be safe without breaking chains of transactions (although this
would break address reuse entirely - but I don't see that as a problem in a
theoretical world). One of those things that an altcoin could improve upon
Bitcoin with... ;)
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 15:13:23
in reply to nevent1q…pq6w
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:13:23Event JSON
{
"id": "9d4da7759a478d2dc75fa8ba57b4f07dc310852cbe804ea9c956d8dcba0d099b",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686150803,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"76969a008b621e54c247029127aebdfbea1794fb79dd58e07b32a76157512d29",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1c0cf8755897ecb8967fd34f06a2089a04b140a547de5fb3f7525d51cd4579d7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-02-12\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:27:52 PM Mark Friedenbach wrote:\n\u003e On 02/12/2014 08:44 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Changing the protocol to use these static IDs is a pretty fundamental\n\u003e \u003e change that would never happen in Bitcoin. But they can still be\n\u003e \u003e useful at the application level to mitigate these issues.\n\u003e \n\u003e Not to mention that it would be potentially very insecure to have\n\u003e consensus depend on data (scriptSigs) which are not hashed in the Merkle\n\u003e structure of a block.\n\u003e \n\u003e Not that anyone on this list has suggested such a change, but I've seen\n\u003e it raised multiple times on the forum....\n\nThis would be a problem if it was used in the merkle tree, but I'm pretty sure \nusing it for input selection would be pretty safe. One could even avoid the \nindex by simply using the hashScript as the sole input value; then even \nCoinJoins would be safe without breaking chains of transactions (although this \nwould break address reuse entirely - but I don't see that as a problem in a \ntheoretical world). One of those things that an altcoin could improve upon \nBitcoin with... ;)",
"sig": "517cca66d4ec3bc963b7341810e2f95e68e8daf9e4fbe7152b8876bc474731f41383ffa6a7d3b65687ff41f480d7ba0576e6dc7b72b4238c5bf9769929ea2b6b"
}