Author: Peter Todd 2015-12-30 20:32:43
Published on: 2015-12-30T20:32:43+00:00
In this message, Emin Gün Sirer discusses the notion of transaction equivalence and its susceptibility to malleability issues. Bitcoin-United relies on this notion, which involves transactions being equal if they consume the same inputs and result in the same outputs, disregarding miner fee. The post also explains that multikey transactions are evaluated for equivalency by their inputs and outputs, allowing a 2-out-of-3 payment to be signed by different sets of two keys. However, Peter Todd points out that multisig transactions are usually hidden behind p2sh, making it difficult to know what keys are involved. He suggests looking into segwit transactions, which provide a better notion of non-malleable transactions. Despite this, many transactions are still malleable and can be intentionally triggered by third parties. Therefore, Bitcoin United may not be successful due to its susceptibility to diverge and fail. Instead, achieving convincing consensus through proof of stake voting or Adam Bank's extension block suggestions may be simpler and more predictable solutions.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T02:54:17.216468+00:00