TX Malleability

[bitPico]

@SamG We need a standards path to control the Bitcoin protocol development like the IETF and HTTP standard. The Gnutella standards approach worked but for some reason nobody including Unlimited will start following a "standardization pathway". If this doesn't happen Bitcoin will fail and we too will exit the Bitcoin ecosystem. Unlimited requiring "memberships" is a horrible idea that displays the opposite of open source. End of rant.

 

[SamG]

The BIP process has worked really well for those who know how to collaborate. Gavin Andresen was the first one to try to go around it, then Mike Hearn joined him, and then the Toomim bros, and now Andrew Stone and Solex.

It's over boys. Hopefully the ETF will fail and we can wrap this bullshit project up.

 

[AdrianX]

@SamG - those not invested in bitcoin have little interest in ensuring it succeeds - I agree with everything Mike H did except selling his coins, he lost the will to see bitcoin succeed by giving up on his investment. you will too.

1) If the Bitcoin network can be taken over through a coordinated effort of ASIC manufacturers, mining pools, and one of the most influential & wealthy bitcoiners, this does not bode well for the future of decentralization.

I think quite the opposite I can come up with over a thousand versions in which bitcoin is taken over as a result of centralization, it's not very creative to limit your self. What maters are incentives, and bitcoin protocol rewards honest cooperation. Until the incentives are undermined this trend is expected to continue and grow. Segwit and the bundled changes including the transaction malleability "fix" are moves counter to rewarding honest cooperation.

2) The much needed fix for tx malleability won't happen because BU will block SegWit, and the BU team will never agree on the best way to implement it.

much needed by whom? I have not seen any BU member reject the fundamental ideas behind segwit, the current implementation is just not being adopted at this time. "never" being a rather fundamentalist position.

2It's especially worrisome since many wallets, exchanges, and device manufacturers have already invested the time to support SegWit.

With all centralized planing there is a miss-allocation of resonators and malinvestment - Core and those subscribing to their centralized planing are not exempt.

 

[bitPico]

@AdrianX Malleability is a bitcoin flaw and having to hack around it is a PITA. Let's fix it, if not we can fork Unlimited, add non-mutated TxID support and expose it via the RPC mechanism and "let the market choose". Then later a simple BIP9 proposal. Would love to see more BIP9's being proposed instead of forum voting to stay on a "standards track".

 

[deadalnix]

@bitPico We are still waiting for the simple soft fork solution you claim exists.

 

[AdrianX]

To answer your question: There is no benefit of deploying a malleability fix until Unlimited has majority hash rate and has completed it's fork.

 

[Hyena]

For some reason this forum hasn't sent me not even a single e-mail notification about replies to this topic, so that's why I didn't reply earlier. And right now I'm super busy and BU seems to have some sort of Zero day again (not cool) so I can't read all the replies.

I just want to say this about TX malleability.
It is not OK to have third parties change TX hash and broadcast essentially duplicate TXs with different hashes. This needs to be fixed and this is what I mean by fixing TX malleability.