📅 Original date posted:2018-12-09
📝 Original message:On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:57:09AM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> One more item to consider is "signature covers witness weight".
>
> While signing the witness weight doesn't completely eliminate witness
> malleability (of the kind that can cause grief for compact blocks), it does
> eliminate the worst kind of witness malleability from the user's
> perspective, the kind where malicious relay nodes increase the amount of
> witness data and therefore reduce the overall fee-rate of the transaction.
To what degree is this an actual problem? If the mutated transaction
pays a feerate at least incremental-relay-fee[1] below the original
transaction, then the original transaction can be rebroadcast as an RBF
replacement of the mutated transaction (unless the mutated version has
been pinned[2]).
-Dave
[1] $ bitcoind -help-debug | grep -A2 incremental
-incrementalrelayfee=<amt>
Fee rate (in BTC/kB) used to define cost of relay, used for mempool
limiting and BIP 125 replacement. (default: 0.00001)
[2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/80803/what-is-meant-by-transaction-pinning
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181209/7ae94da5/attachment.sig>;
David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub16d…x4wrd
2023-06-07 18:15:35
in reply to nevent1q…lm3k
Author Public Key
npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdPublished at
2023-06-07 18:15:35Event JSON
{
"id": "6e5580389270b366cebf3f5d05e7ca7b4caab35b66bec9621a508a18066686bd",
"pubkey": "d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2",
"created_at": 1686161735,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"77c824d861e497590991b7dc940a75787db11a7b2eab6adcf5563d0847a4df18",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0ad693fcb7a6511ed74803a9684bc401774e04aa2bd54226f7ffc5dd27ac6071",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-12-09\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:57:09AM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e One more item to consider is \"signature covers witness weight\".\n\u003e \n\u003e While signing the witness weight doesn't completely eliminate witness\n\u003e malleability (of the kind that can cause grief for compact blocks), it does\n\u003e eliminate the worst kind of witness malleability from the user's\n\u003e perspective, the kind where malicious relay nodes increase the amount of\n\u003e witness data and therefore reduce the overall fee-rate of the transaction.\n\nTo what degree is this an actual problem? If the mutated transaction\npays a feerate at least incremental-relay-fee[1] below the original\ntransaction, then the original transaction can be rebroadcast as an RBF\nreplacement of the mutated transaction (unless the mutated version has\nbeen pinned[2]).\n\n-Dave\n\n[1] $ bitcoind -help-debug | grep -A2 incremental\n -incrementalrelayfee=\u003camt\u003e\n Fee rate (in BTC/kB) used to define cost of relay, used for mempool\n limiting and BIP 125 replacement. (default: 0.00001)\n\n[2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/80803/what-is-meant-by-transaction-pinning\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181209/7ae94da5/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "4c26c06c3b39e7f9996a4430f1f4e2920502003bb52ec26a0f857dead267f88b8b2aea548241826e956a590fcd3e51895340c172ccf5f7d53696ac4511051929"
}