[Bitcoin-ml] Malleability Fix SIGHASH_ANYOUTPUT

[Jared Lee Richardson]

> The *only* purpose of allowing
> non-malleable transactions is to enable automated processes to create an
> off-chain multisig transaction and other off-chain transactions that
> spend it. Such processes have no reason at all to reuse these multisig
> addresses,

Ah, the good ole "You'll innovate the way we want or else that's not
Bitcoin" approach.


Why does that seem so familiar?  Have I see some other group doing
that somewhere else?

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-ml
<bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 18:55, Tom Zander via bitcoin-ml wrote:
>> On Sunday, 8 October 2017 11:25:33 CEST Tomas via bitcoin-ml wrote:
>> > However, we should consider our goal: The *only* purpose of allowing
>> > non-malleable transactions is to enable automated processes to create an
>> > off-chain multisig transaction and other off-chain transactions that
>> > spend it.
>>
>> Why do you say that?
>
> I don't see a problem with transaction malleabilty if you publish
> transactions on-chain.  And off-chain transactions can always be
> "malleated" if a transaction is signed by a single party, as he can just
> spend the output elsewhere.
>
> Let me put it differently: I understand the problems for construction of
> transactions signed by two parties that are kept off chain and for which
> dependent transactions are also created off chain. I am not aware of
> other constructions that are problematic due to malleability.
>
> I am aware that some exchanges (ViaBTC, MtGox) have had bugs that were
> related to malleability, but in my opinion these are easily prevented
> and - though related - certainly not _caused_ by the known malleability
> behaviour of the system.
>
> Tomas van der Wansem
> bitcrust
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-ml mailing list
> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml