[Bitcoin-development] [RFC] [BIP proposal] Dealing with malleability

Gavin Andresen gavinandresen at gmail.com
Thu Feb 20 14:58:30 UTC 2014

Great, I'm hearing rough consensus to proceed with Pieter's plan.

RE: far from confident on malleability routes:  I'm reasonably confident
that we can squash malleability for IsStandard, SIGHASH_ALL transactions. A
proper proof of DSA signature un-malleability (or an lower bound for how
much work it would be to create a valid doppleganger signature) would be
great, but I don't think it is necessary to proceed.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think we should get Pieter's proposal done and implemented quickly. I
> > agree with Mike, it doesn't have to take a long time for the core
> network to
> > fully support this.
> >
> > Getting wallets to start generating transaction.version=3 might take
> years,
> > but that is OK.
> Sure I'm all for doing what Pieter suggested-- it's basically the plan
> we've been executing for some time already but with the version check
> to make it sane to complete.
> My reserved sounding comments were relative to the proposals to do
> things with nversion=1 transactions, frankly I think thats completely
> insane. Though while we're on the subject of reservations, I am far
> from confident that we've uncovered all the possible malleability
> routes-- that list gained a new, never before discussed entry, when
> Pieter was writing it a couple weeks ago.  We also have no proof of
> the absence of further algebraic malleability in DSA (though I think
> its somewhat unlikely, a solid proof of it has been somewhat elusive).

Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140220/3a8746e1/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list