📅 Original date posted:2015-01-23
📝 Original message:On 01/23/2015 11:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it seems that there was no soft-fork way to achieve this
>> benefit, at least not one that had favorable properties. Most of the
>> soft-fork variations of it required the coins being spent to have been
>> originated in a special way. In other words, it would only work if the
>> coins had entered the wallet with some special, modified TxOut script. So
>> it wouldn't work with existing coins, and would require senders to update
>> their software to reshape the way they send transactions to be compatible
>> with our goals.
> I think this is unreasonable. There is a straight-forward soft-fork
> approach which is safe (e.g. no risk of invalidating existing
> transactions). Yes, it means that you need to use newly created
> addresses to get coins that use the new signature type... but thats
> only the case for people who want the new capability. This is
> massively preferable to expecting _every_ _other_ user of the system
> (including miners, full nodes, etc.) to replace their software with an
> incompatible new version just to accommodate your transactions, for
> which they may care nothing about and which would otherwise not have
> any urgent need to change.
>
>
As far as I'm concerned, anything that requires the coins to originate
in the wallet with some special form is a non-starter. The new SIGHASH
type allows you to sign transactions with *any* coins already in your
wallet, and imposes no requirements on anyone paying your cold wallet to
be compatible with your signer.
Any proposals that require coin origination features means that 100% of
people paying you need to "be nice" and send you coins with this special
structure. You can't spend old coins that were sent before this
proposal was implemented, and if anyone sends you coins without
respecting the new structure, then your signing devices need the
full-complexity routines to accommodate, which defeats the entire purpose.
I am happy to entertain other ideas that achieve our goals here, but I'm
fairly confident that the new SIGHASH type is the only way that would
allow devices like Trezor to truly simplify their design (and still work
securely on 100% of funds contained by the wallet).
Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sm…mnq7h
2023-06-07 15:29:05
in reply to nevent1q…lq9w
Author Public Key
npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hPublished at
2023-06-07 15:29:05Event JSON
{
"id": "442bfd151c6c2bbd82893d188381e59e93181220cb0ec07b574fd39f2ab24bac",
"pubkey": "86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec",
"created_at": 1686151745,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6dc832bdb706e2f61589ea679669c46a49f00ca991f53b93fef09a1a229115c6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0d5828395531f57751472e337b5e319c830a94c330a515ff7a277a8513277013",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-01-23\n📝 Original message:On 01/23/2015 11:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Alan Reiner \u003cetotheipi at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Unfortunately, it seems that there was no soft-fork way to achieve this\n\u003e\u003e benefit, at least not one that had favorable properties. Most of the\n\u003e\u003e soft-fork variations of it required the coins being spent to have been\n\u003e\u003e originated in a special way. In other words, it would only work if the\n\u003e\u003e coins had entered the wallet with some special, modified TxOut script. So\n\u003e\u003e it wouldn't work with existing coins, and would require senders to update\n\u003e\u003e their software to reshape the way they send transactions to be compatible\n\u003e\u003e with our goals.\n\u003e I think this is unreasonable. There is a straight-forward soft-fork\n\u003e approach which is safe (e.g. no risk of invalidating existing\n\u003e transactions). Yes, it means that you need to use newly created\n\u003e addresses to get coins that use the new signature type... but thats\n\u003e only the case for people who want the new capability. This is\n\u003e massively preferable to expecting _every_ _other_ user of the system\n\u003e (including miners, full nodes, etc.) to replace their software with an\n\u003e incompatible new version just to accommodate your transactions, for\n\u003e which they may care nothing about and which would otherwise not have\n\u003e any urgent need to change.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\nAs far as I'm concerned, anything that requires the coins to originate\nin the wallet with some special form is a non-starter. The new SIGHASH\ntype allows you to sign transactions with *any* coins already in your\nwallet, and imposes no requirements on anyone paying your cold wallet to\nbe compatible with your signer. \n\nAny proposals that require coin origination features means that 100% of\npeople paying you need to \"be nice\" and send you coins with this special\nstructure. You can't spend old coins that were sent before this\nproposal was implemented, and if anyone sends you coins without\nrespecting the new structure, then your signing devices need the\nfull-complexity routines to accommodate, which defeats the entire purpose.\n\nI am happy to entertain other ideas that achieve our goals here, but I'm\nfairly confident that the new SIGHASH type is the only way that would\nallow devices like Trezor to truly simplify their design (and still work\nsecurely on 100% of funds contained by the wallet).",
"sig": "9185cfba2cb468b23e99daf396ea8241dd58d11781d6a564ee1987e49ba431f4385ba981e54767e7e2a48edbc63215e17b76c2cafef1161e2fede3818f3294bd"
}