Luke-Jr





Offline



Activity: 2506

Merit: 1022









LegendaryActivity: 2506Merit: 1022

Re: New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest? October 04, 2015, 09:09:09 PM #57 Quote from: btcash on October 04, 2015, 08:33:50 PM Quote OK. This is not "someone". It is me.

Right now the stress-test is paused. I reserve a right to resume it.

Ask me anything. Apparently you used the low/high s attack (



How is it possible that so many transactions were affected if v2 transaction are protected against this kind of attack?

Quote The advantage for programs using v2 transactions is that they can generally be constructed to be non-malleable by third parties, so v2 transactions can more safely be used for applications like the initial bond part of establishing a micropayment channel. http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35904/how-much-of-bip-62-dealing-with-malleability-has-been-implemented



https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0062.mediawiki

Quote NOTICE: This document is a work in progress and is not complete, implemented, or otherwise suitable for deployment. Why? Apparently rules 1-6 have been implemented, 7 only affects special outputs and 8,9 shouldn't be a problem (for third party malleability)

Apparently you used the low/high s attack ( http://blog.coinkite.com/post/130318407326/ongoing-bitcoin-malleability-attack-low-s-high ).How is it possible that so many transactions were affected if v2 transaction are protected against this kind of attack?Why? Apparently rules 1-6 have been implemented, 7 only affects special outputs and 8,9 shouldn't be a problem (for third party malleability) not implemented, and BIP 66 extended rule 1 to all transactions, regardless of their version.



But the main reason it isn't suitable right now is the "Block validity" section, which uses block version >=3 to trigger it.

We already are on block version 3 for BIP 66, so this needs to be updated for another version.



Furthermore, when we were initially planning to begin roll-out, Peter Todd (IIRC) brought forward some very real issues with the BIP that would have potentially been problematic, so there was a general feeling that BIP 62 had not been sufficiently reviewed/considered, and was therefore too risky. Rules 2-6 are alsoimplemented, and BIP 66 extended rule 1 totransactions, regardless of their version.But the main reason it isn't suitable right now is the "Block validity" section, which uses block version >=3 to trigger it.We already are on block version 3 for BIP 66, so this needs to be updated for another version.Furthermore, when we were initially planning to begin roll-out, Peter Todd (IIRC) brought forward some very real issues with the BIP that would have potentially been problematic, so there was a general feeling that BIP 62 had not been sufficiently reviewed/considered, and was therefore too risky.