{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub14sz60zalvsz094ekxmgq2xpcsr67a9aljeqcny479lc8mpsp95jqfwv9e3","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub14sz60zalvsz094ekxmgq2xpcsr67a9aljeqcny479lc8mpsp95jqfwv9e3","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-11-20\n📝 Original message:BIP 140 looks like it solves Tx Malleability with least impact on current\npractices. It is still a soft fork though.\n\nFinally, if we were to create an alternative cyptocurrency similar to\nBitcoin, a Normalized Tx ID approach would be a better choice if I get it\nright!\nᐧ\n\nOn Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Johnson Lau \u003cjl2012 at xbt.hk\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e We can’t “just compute the Transaction ID the same way the hash for\n\u003e signing the transaction is computed” because with different SIGHASH flags,\n\u003e there are 6 (actually 256) ways to hash a transaction.\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, changing the definition of TxID is a hardfork change, i.e. everyone\n\u003e are required to upgrade or a chain split will happen.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is possible to use “normalised TxID” (BIP140) to fix malleability\n\u003e issue. As a softfork, BIP140 doesn’t change the definition of TxID.\n\u003e Instead, the normalised txid (i.e. txid with scriptSig removed) is used\n\u003e when making signature. Comparing with segwit (BIP141), BIP140 does not have\n\u003e the side-effect of block size increase, and doesn’t provide any incentive\n\u003e to control the size of UTXO set. Also, BIP140 makes the UTXO set\n\u003e permanently bigger, as the database needs to store both txid and normalised\n\u003e txid\n\u003e\n\u003e On 21 Nov 2017, at 1:24 AM, Praveen Baratam via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Bitcoin Noob here. Please forgive my ignorance.\n\u003e\n\u003e From what I understand, in SegWit, the transaction needs to be serialized\n\u003e into a data structure that is different from the current one where\n\u003e signatures are separated from the rest of the transaction data.\n\u003e\n\u003e Why change the format at all? Why cant we just compute the Transaction ID\n\u003e the same way the hash for signing the transaction is computed?\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Dr. Praveen Baratam\n\u003e\n\u003e about.me \u003chttp://about.me/praveen.baratam\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nDr. Praveen Baratam\n\nabout.me \u003chttp://about.me/praveen.baratam\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171120/35d7fb17/attachment.html\u003e"}