📅 Original date posted:2017-11-10
📝 Original message:
HI,
I have some questions regarding the proposal to use SIGHASH_NOINPUT on
the bitcoin-dev mailing list. [1]
1. If I understand correctly, the problem of malleated transactions for
LN is limited to the punishment transaction which is the only one that
spends an unconfirmed transaction. Does that mean that with
SIGHASH_NOINPUT, no other malleability fix would have been needed for LN
to work? Am I correct that LN could function with (roughly) the same
design without SegWit if SIGHASH_NOINPUT would be in place?
2. On the mailing list, it was argued that SIGHASH_NOINPUT is important
to prevent excessive recreation and routing of punishment transaction to
3rd party monitoring services. Is this still important or have other
solutions presented itself? Is work in this area still being done?
Thanks,
Tomas van der Wansem
bitcrust
[1]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012460.html
Tomas [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rs…9evk4
2023-06-09 12:47:38
in reply to nevent1q…ymww
Author Public Key
npub1rsp4w56r24w3zv4xy8zfgesep45qmf9rq6aghxfw3wr7yemqnnwsf9evk4Published at
2023-06-09 12:47:38Event JSON
{
"id": "65ee6dbba17aee12dcd8f662b9583817322d42963a547f6056bfc2e408bf509a",
"pubkey": "1c03575343555d1132a621c49466190d680da4a306ba8b992e8b87e267609cdd",
"created_at": 1686314858,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1b5890b1f355aa9bd0c48d19b3a4f0c6e857ab0a1016ed957f0b70c4a4e4b725",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9456f7acb763eaab2e02bd8e60cf17df74f352c2ae579dce1f1dd25c95dd611c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-11-10\n📝 Original message:\nHI,\n\nI have some questions regarding the proposal to use SIGHASH_NOINPUT on\nthe bitcoin-dev mailing list. [1]\n\n1. If I understand correctly, the problem of malleated transactions for\nLN is limited to the punishment transaction which is the only one that\nspends an unconfirmed transaction. Does that mean that with\nSIGHASH_NOINPUT, no other malleability fix would have been needed for LN\nto work? Am I correct that LN could function with (roughly) the same\ndesign without SegWit if SIGHASH_NOINPUT would be in place?\n\n2. On the mailing list, it was argued that SIGHASH_NOINPUT is important\nto prevent excessive recreation and routing of punishment transaction to\n3rd party monitoring services. Is this still important or have other\nsolutions presented itself? Is work in this area still being done?\n\nThanks,\nTomas van der Wansem\nbitcrust\n\n[1]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012460.html",
"sig": "fe30b1239f46df8fbffb81d6fc480f4a9598fa62348f0e04738a17b54319b7cd8c1fb771dede48cf4031bf1a208f30c33744bd8c0ddef61d73767d58d9c59d9a"
}