{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1uxks6rvrzqljyfp92sffgqypf8fpts0pv2dshvmmnrse76v0avlqy7wq7p","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1uxks6rvrzqljyfp92sffgqypf8fpts0pv2dshvmmnrse76v0avlqy7wq7p","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-11-09\n📝 Original message:\u003e Op 9 nov. 2017, om 21:45 heeft Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e het volgende geschreven:\n\u003e \n\u003e As I understand you, a private key in cold storage would (of course) remain valid across HFs, but an address would be valid only for the nForkId it was generated for.  There may be cold-storage-type cases where it's important for an address to be valid across all chains, ie, to intentionally allow replay?  But I guess this could just be a special nForkId value, say -1?\n\nIf I understand the proposal correctly, you can always spend coins; it's the next transaction that is replay protected.\n\nI like the idea of specifying the fork in bech32 [0]. On the other hand, the standard already has a human readable part. Perhaps the human readable part can be used as the fork id?\n\nNote that in your currently proposal nForkId is only in the transaction signature pre-image. It's not in the serialized transaction, so a node would just have to try to see if the signature is valid. I don't know if that's a problem.\n\nCan you clarify what you mean with:\n\u003e Allowing signatures with `nForkId=1` can be achieved with a soft fork by incrementing the script version of SegWit, making this a fully backwards compatible change.\n\nWhat's the purpose of nForkId 1?\n\n\u003e  potentially a way to opt-out of replay protection of any fork, where deemed necessary (can be beneficial for some L2 applications).\n\nCan you give an example of where this opt-out would be useful? Why wouldn't it be enough to just sign one transaction for each fork?\n\nIn Spoonnet, the version number is added to the SIGHASH_TYPE in the pre-image. Your solution of just adding another field seems easier, but maybe there's a downside?\n\nSjors\n\n[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki#Bech32\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171109/e5a52b05/attachment.sig\u003e"}