📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30
📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> Note how transaction malleability can quickly sabotage naive notions of
> this idea.
>
Bitcoin-United relies on a notion of transaction equivalence that doesn't
involve the transaction hash at all, so it should be immune to malleability
issues and compatible with segwit.
>From the post, two transactions are equal if they "consume the same inputs
and result in the same outputs, not counting the miner fee. Simple
pay-to-pubkey-hash and pay-to-script-hash transactions are straightforward.
Multikey transactions are evaluated for equivalency by their inputs and
outputs, so it is allowable for a 2-out-of-3 payment to be signed by one
set of two keys on Dum and another set of two keys on Dee, as long as the
transaction consumes the same coins and produces the same outputs. Not that
we'll ever encounter such a case, but making this point helps pedagogically
with getting across the notion of transaction equivalence. What counts are
the consumed inputs and the destination and amounts of the outputs."
But you're right, if a naive implementation were to just use the
transaction hash, the result would be a mess.
- egs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151230/1672f2d0/attachment.html>;
Emin Gün Sirer [ARCHIVE] /
npub1k6…xvja6
2023-06-07 17:47:29
in reply to nevent1q…hu7s
Author Public Key
npub1k6906yrdzekdkn23mrskcf6up8s2fypqldhnz9gfc44kwsan02zq5xvja6Published at
2023-06-07 17:47:29Event JSON
{
"id": "bc394190ef1c05b71df64054db1389afcdd1ac93a7336c0fec1dbae2270cf8a3",
"pubkey": "b68afd106d166cdb4d51d8e16c275c09e0a49020fb6f311509c56b6743b37a84",
"created_at": 1686160049,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"952f2c3963bbc4e3bc8c1ee62942da7fea09db4c863ca025d9e089b9448e51cb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c70f6e226c19cdb299518bf523f7243011b271a18029dc9424692fd835f79505",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Note how transaction malleability can quickly sabotage naive notions of\n\u003e this idea.\n\u003e\n\nBitcoin-United relies on a notion of transaction equivalence that doesn't\ninvolve the transaction hash at all, so it should be immune to malleability\nissues and compatible with segwit.\n\n\u003eFrom the post, two transactions are equal if they \"consume the same inputs\nand result in the same outputs, not counting the miner fee. Simple\npay-to-pubkey-hash and pay-to-script-hash transactions are straightforward.\nMultikey transactions are evaluated for equivalency by their inputs and\noutputs, so it is allowable for a 2-out-of-3 payment to be signed by one\nset of two keys on Dum and another set of two keys on Dee, as long as the\ntransaction consumes the same coins and produces the same outputs. Not that\nwe'll ever encounter such a case, but making this point helps pedagogically\nwith getting across the notion of transaction equivalence. What counts are\nthe consumed inputs and the destination and amounts of the outputs.\"\n\nBut you're right, if a naive implementation were to just use the\ntransaction hash, the result would be a mess.\n\n- egs\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151230/1672f2d0/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "2eb2e6a92e861f3896ac652bfbff159de47614f858173a1e8ad7dacf631271c79507efcd2cfb1bb879575283a0baa617705a73c5d075e79a97ca487b6a8f61ab"
}