rich1.0npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuynhttps://nostr.ae/npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuynnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-19 📝 Original message:Yes, this has been pointed out in the PR as well. Transactions inputs must also be normalized by replacing malleable hashes with the normalized hashes. I will fix the spec and the implementation to reflect this :-) Regards, Christian On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:24 PM Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> As with the previous version, which was using a hard-fork, the normalized >> transaction ID is computed only considering the non-malleable parts of a >> transaction, i.e., stripping the signatures before computing the hash of >> the transaction. >> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > > Is this proposal recursive? > > > *Coinbase transaction * > > * n-txid = txid > > > *Non-coinbase transactions* > * replace sigScripts with empty strings > * replace txids in TxIns with n-txid for parents > > The 2nd step is recursive starting from the coinbases. > > In effect, the rule is that txids are what they would have been if n-txids > had been used right from the start. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151019/5df79d73/attachment.html>