📅 Original date posted:2015-05-13
📝 Original message:I think this is a good way to handle things, but as you say, it is a hard
fork.
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY covers many of the use cases, but it would be nice to
fix malleability once and for all.
This has the effect of doubling the size of the UTXO database. At minimum,
there needs to be a legacy txid to normalized txid map in the database.
An addition to the BIP would eliminate the need for the 2nd index. You
could require a SPV proof of the spending transaction to be included with
legacy transactions. This would allow clients to verify that the
normalized txid matched the legacy id.
The OutPoint would be {LegacyId | SPV Proof to spending tx | spending tx |
index}. This allows a legacy transaction to be upgraded. OutPoints which
use a normalized txid don't need the SPV proof.
The hard fork would be followed by a transitional period, in which both
txids could be used. Afterwards, legacy transactions have to have the SPV
proof added. This means that old transactions with locktimes years in the
future can be upgraded for spending, without nodes needing to maintain two
indexes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150513/84f2cb0a/attachment.html>;
Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g6…sl5wd
2023-06-07 15:35:06
in reply to nevent1q…x8ht
Author Public Key
npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdPublished at
2023-06-07 15:35:06Event JSON
{
"id": "0b64b9178d3f211f7c4fe90a35269521759f0150da1e580997f93bd58711b594",
"pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e",
"created_at": 1686152106,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d4296383f49c1a9f727ee325cad107826210d0f0a44bfb48a025773c99b7560e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"411b96c235634e7792bba53a2539dfea8da38495fad6b70141a756c664388e99",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-13\n📝 Original message:I think this is a good way to handle things, but as you say, it is a hard\nfork.\n\nCHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY covers many of the use cases, but it would be nice to\nfix malleability once and for all.\n\nThis has the effect of doubling the size of the UTXO database. At minimum,\nthere needs to be a legacy txid to normalized txid map in the database.\n\nAn addition to the BIP would eliminate the need for the 2nd index. You\ncould require a SPV proof of the spending transaction to be included with\nlegacy transactions. This would allow clients to verify that the\nnormalized txid matched the legacy id.\n\nThe OutPoint would be {LegacyId | SPV Proof to spending tx | spending tx |\nindex}. This allows a legacy transaction to be upgraded. OutPoints which\nuse a normalized txid don't need the SPV proof.\n\nThe hard fork would be followed by a transitional period, in which both\ntxids could be used. Afterwards, legacy transactions have to have the SPV\nproof added. This means that old transactions with locktimes years in the\nfuture can be upgraded for spending, without nodes needing to maintain two\nindexes.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150513/84f2cb0a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "0ab50f44cdf333317f13e2c0a1928ab64ab6027002489f7530c1ea5ef5874ebb8e7ead9c7d758a1613fa6a261b1ab9d0d08438ae79b4262eeb9309c7009c63c0"
}