Author: Luke-Jr 2013-11-03 00:33:55
Published on: 2013-11-03T00:33:55+00:00
In a discussion on November 3, 2013, Allen Piscitello expressed concern about implementing a scheme where a refund transaction is signed before the original transaction is broadcast. Originally, he tried to pass a hash and have the server sign it, but he realized that he had no way of knowing whether he was signing a transaction that was spending his coins. To mitigate this, he changed the code to require sending the full transaction instead of just the hash. Another way to address this issue is to not have any unspent outputs from the key. In response, Luke commented that there is no use case for signing with an address that has already been sent coins. However, there is no way to stop someone from sending to an "identity" address.
Updated on: 2023-06-07T18:55:07.896416+00:00