[Bitcoin-ml] Malleability - Show of hands

[Tomas]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 16:56, Steve via bitcoin-ml wrote:
> "Hype and overly high expectation" - This is exactly why I asked this 
> question... To determine if this what we are responding to. Are we 
> simply trying to enable a thing that possibly no one will ever actually 
> implement just so we can say that we can because that's what the 
> opposition did?  Because the hype will lead to the dichotomy of 
> btc-LN/bcc-no-LN?  If so shouldn't we be prosecuting the argument that 
> we don't need LN?  Or at the least that LN is limited and we will use it 
> for those limited uses?

As should be clear from my answer, I am not a LN fan, but in my opinion
BCC-LN/BCC-NO-LN  is irrelevant and out-of-scope. 

I am proposing a simple upgrade which allows chaining off-chain
transactions; something many clever people that are building clever
stuff on top of the blockchain have asked for many times. Reducing this
question to LN good/LN bad is misinterpreting the function of such
proposal.

This ML is not to decide consensus, and I am proposing it to see if
there are technical problems or improvements, and to test the waters to
avoid pointless code typing.

In the end it is up to miners whether they want a change if they think
users want it, and up to maintainers to merge a change if they think
miners want it, and up to devs to build a change if they think
maintainers want it.

I believe the benefit of SIGHASH_SPENDANYOUTPUT is to serve users that
want to build stuff using off-chain chaining. If you ask me to argue the
benefits besides just "enabling off-chain chaining" and if I attempt to
put on miner's shoes, I would think that miners will want it not just
for technical merit, but even more so for "hype and expectations" of LN.
Is there anything wrong with that? Isn't that how they maximize their
profit?

I do not believe in Tom's idea that fixing malleability somehow makes
the txids of 0-conf transactions more useful.

Tomas van der Wansem