Look at the last merges, devs are already fixing the malleability problem

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: Abdussamad on February 12, 2014, 11:30:45 PM

Quote from: BittBurger on February 12, 2014, 11:25:55 PM

And after all this,

can someone tell me why .... the dev team hasn't fixed it immediately?

If for no other reason than fixing the bad press?

It astounds me how slow the bitcoin dev team seems to be. I could wrong about this, but a lot of uninformed people considered this weeks events a sign that BTC needs some fixing.

Dontcha think it might behoove us to fix the problem, just so someone can publish that it was fixed, and show how flexible and resilient Bitcoin is when something is found wrong?

Are they seriously going to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem?

Probably testing the fix. A lot of money is at stake so they can't roll out a half arsed piece of software.

Indeed. The fear would be rushing a fix and introducing a new bug that is worse than the problem they are trying to fix.

As long as you are using a proper client, you won't lose any coins to the transaction malleability issue. I'm sure they are doing what they can. Of course, the project is open source, so anyone is welcome to submit their ideas.

Abdussamad

legendary

Activity: 3682

Merit: 1580

Quote from: BittBurger on February 12, 2014, 11:25:55 PM

And after all this,

can someone tell me why .... the dev team hasn't fixed it immediately?

If for no other reason than fixing the bad press?

It astounds me how slow the bitcoin dev team seems to be. I could wrong about this, but a lot of uninformed people considered this weeks events a sign that BTC needs some fixing.

Dontcha think it might behoove us to fix the problem, just so someone can publish that it was fixed, and show how flexible and resilient Bitcoin is when something is found wrong?

Are they seriously going to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem?

Probably testing the fix. A lot of money is at stake so they can't roll out a half arsed piece of software.

BittBurger

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1001

And after all this,

can someone tell me why .... the dev team hasn't fixed it immediately?

If for no other reason than fixing the bad press?

It astounds me how slow the bitcoin dev team seems to be. I could wrong about this, but a lot of uninformed people considered this weeks events a sign that BTC needs some fixing.

Dontcha think it might behoove us to fix the problem, just so someone can publish that it was fixed, and show how flexible and resilient Bitcoin is when something is found wrong?

Are they seriously going to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem?

12648430

full member

Activity: 144

Merit: 100

Quote from: meanig on February 12, 2014, 05:56:19 PM

Quote from: BitTrade on February 12, 2014, 05:34:57 PM

Quote from: Nagle on February 12, 2014, 02:15:27 PM

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 11:49:22 AM

[Change from an unconfirmed transaction is available for immediate spend]

It looks like it's going to be necessary to wait for confirmations on your own change from now on.

This is a big deal. If I understand correctly, an entire wallet balance will be unusable until a small outgoing transaction is confirmed?

No it means the entire balance of the change address is unusable until confirmed. The whole wallet balance would only be unusable until confirmed if you only had a coin balance in one address (the change address). Multibit has always been like this because change was always sent back to the sending address. It hasn't done Multibit's popularity any harm.

Actually, it's not the balance of the address that would be locked up, but of the specific UTXOs draw from to build the transaction. The addresses the change outputs are sent to have no bearing on what UTXOs are available.

BitTrade

full member

Activity: 173

Merit: 100

Quote from: meanig on February 12, 2014, 05:56:19 PM

Quote from: BitTrade on February 12, 2014, 05:34:57 PM

Quote from: Nagle on February 12, 2014, 02:15:27 PM

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 11:49:22 AM

[Change from an unconfirmed transaction is available for immediate spend]

It looks like it's going to be necessary to wait for confirmations on your own change from now on.

This is a big deal. If I understand correctly, an entire wallet balance will be unusable until a small outgoing transaction is confirmed?

No it means the entire balance of the change address is unusable until confirmed. The whole wallet balance would only be unusable until confirmed if you only had a coin balance in one address (the change address).

I'd venture to guess most people don't have multiple addresses per wallet.. Like blockchain users who haven't generated multiple addresses

meanig

hero member

Activity: 531

Merit: 501

Quote from: BitTrade on February 12, 2014, 05:34:57 PM

Quote from: Nagle on February 12, 2014, 02:15:27 PM

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 11:49:22 AM

[Change from an unconfirmed transaction is available for immediate spend]

It looks like it's going to be necessary to wait for confirmations on your own change from now on.

This is a big deal. If I understand correctly, an entire wallet balance will be unusable until a small outgoing transaction is confirmed?

No it means the entire balance of the change address is unusable until confirmed. The whole wallet balance would only be unusable until confirmed if you only had a coin balance in one address (the change address). Multibit has always been like this because change was always sent back to the sending address. It hasn't done Multibit's popularity any harm.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: gamecenteruk on February 12, 2014, 05:42:19 PM

This problem is really serious, if the money in the wallet can not be used, the whole bitcoin is useless as well.

Change will behave exactly the same way newly received coins behave now. They will be spendable after the next block is found.

Until the transaction malleability problem is fixed, this is prudent behavior.

jongameson

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

if your concerned about malleability
just mine steel
or mercury
geez

gamecenteruk

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

This problem is really serious, if the money in the wallet can not be used, the whole bitcoin is useless as well.

BitTrade

full member

Activity: 173

Merit: 100

Quote from: Nagle on February 12, 2014, 02:15:27 PM

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 11:49:22 AM

[Change from an unconfirmed transaction is available for immediate spend]

It looks like it's going to be necessary to wait for confirmations on your own change from now on.

This is a big deal. If I understand correctly, an entire wallet balance will be unusable until a small outgoing transaction is confirmed?

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Nagle on February 12, 2014, 02:15:27 PM

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 11:49:22 AM

[Change from an unconfirmed transaction is available for immediate spend]

Not any more. That just changed in the QT client.

Yes, that is part of the change mentioned in the OP.

Nagle

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 11:49:22 AM

[Change from an unconfirmed transaction is available for immediate spend]

Not any more. That just changed in the QT client.

It looks like it's going to be necessary to wait for confirmations on your own change from now on.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Obviously the fix was urgent after the current events.

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 1313

Quote from: vv01f on February 12, 2014, 11:38:51 AM

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 07:46:49 AM

Up to now, people (including the reference software) have relied on the transaction id being meaningful.

There is a difference between a txid of a x-times verified transaction (in blockchain already, x>=y where y>0 (usually 6) is the security block count of the receiver) and a txid in an unverified transaction. Wink

100% correct. Until there are sufficient confirmations, you cannot depend on it. Even a transaction can be replaced prior to confirmation which is why confirmations matter. The reference client displays unconfirmed transactions as a user convenience since they can be altered but does not rely on transaction IDs for refunding money.

BitCoinDream

legendary

Activity: 2394

Merit: 1216

The revolution will be digital

I think malleability problem is client dependent. Those using old clients will continue to encounter this problem.

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: vv01f on February 12, 2014, 11:38:51 AM

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 07:46:49 AM

Up to now, people (including the reference software) have relied on the transaction id being meaningful.

There is a difference between a txid of a x-times verified transaction (in blockchain already, x>=y where y>0 (usually 6) is the security block count of the receiver) and a txid in an unverified transaction. Wink

And people and software, including the standard client, have relied on the latter.
[Change from an unconfirmed transaction is available for immediate spend]

vv01f

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 250

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 07:46:49 AM

Up to now, people (including the reference software) have relied on the transaction id being meaningful.

There is a difference between a txid of a x-times verified transaction (in blockchain already, x>=y where y>0 (usually 6) is the security block count of the receiver) and a txid in an unverified transaction. Wink

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rannasha on February 12, 2014, 06:05:34 AM

This also isn't a real problem, since the essential elements of the transaction (inputs, outputs, amounts) can't be changed in this way.

If you were designing a system from scratch, is there any reason you would think the current behaviour of Bitcoin is desirable?

Quote

We just need to let go of the tx-id as a bookkeeping tool.

The standard response from pools and exchanges if someone complains that their payment hasn't gone through is for them to search for the transaction in the blockchain.
Up to now, people (including the reference software) have relied on the transaction id being meaningful.

Rannasha

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: murraypaul on February 12, 2014, 06:00:35 AM

Nothing in that quote said anything about fixing the fact that 3rd parties can modify and rebroadcast someone else's transaction.

This also isn't a real problem, since the essential elements of the transaction (inputs, outputs, amounts) can't be changed in this way.

We just need to let go of the tx-id as a bookkeeping tool.

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

No, they are reducing the impact of it, not fixing it.
Nothing in that quote said anything about fixing the fact that 3rd parties can modify and rebroadcast someone else's transaction.

Topic: Look at the last merges, devs are already fixing the malleability problem (Read 3941 times)