{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-02-12\n📝 Original message:I apologize if this has been discussed many times before.\n\nAs a long term solution to malleable transactions, wouldn't it be possible\nto modify the signatures to be of the entire transaction.  Why do you have\nto zero out the inputs?  I can see that this would be a hard fork, and\nmaybe it would be somewhat tricky to extract signatures first (since you\ncan sign everything except the signatures), but it would seem to me that\nthis is an important enough change to consider making.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:27:52 PM Mark Friedenbach wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On 02/12/2014 08:44 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Changing the protocol to use these static IDs is a pretty fundamental\n\u003e \u003e \u003e change that would never happen in Bitcoin.   But they can still be\n\u003e \u003e \u003e useful at the application level to mitigate these issues.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Not to mention that it would be potentially very insecure to have\n\u003e \u003e consensus depend on data (scriptSigs) which are not hashed in the Merkle\n\u003e \u003e structure of a block.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Not that anyone on this list has suggested such a change, but I've seen\n\u003e \u003e it raised multiple times on the forum....\n\u003e\n\u003e This would be a problem if it was used in the merkle tree, but I'm pretty\n\u003e sure\n\u003e using it for input selection would be pretty safe. One could even avoid the\n\u003e index by simply using the hashScript as the sole input value; then even\n\u003e CoinJoins would be safe without breaking chains of transactions (although\n\u003e this\n\u003e would break address reuse entirely - but I don't see that as a problem in a\n\u003e theoretical world). One of those things that an altcoin could improve upon\n\u003e Bitcoin with... ;)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Android apps run on BlackBerry 10\n\u003e Introducing the new BlackBerry 10.2.1 Runtime for Android apps.\n\u003e Now with support for Jelly Bean, Bluetooth, Mapview and more.\n\u003e Get your Android app in front of a whole new audience.  Start now.\n\u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=124407151\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140212/1bd41008/attachment.html\u003e"}