Topic: New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest? - page 9. (Read 41229 times)

The goal is to minimize malleability in the long run, and there are few parts playing together:

  1. wallets, which create transactions with "compliant" or "non-compliant" signatures
  2. nodes, which relay or don't relay transactions with "non-compliant" signatures
  3. miners, which mine or don't mine transactions with "non-compliant" signatures

("compliant" -> low s, "non-compliant" -> high s)

If BIP 62 rule 5 becomes a standard policy (or is enforced), then it would become harder to relay non-compliant transactions, though, the transactions of non-compliant wallets would also be rejected, which is probably not a favorable outcome.

Ideally miners don't mine non-compliant transactions, but assuming they reject all of them right now, at a time when not all wallets create low s values, then the same issue applies: legit transactions are not mined.

The ongoing active mutation of transactions made me wonder, whether targeted mutation could be leveraged - by miners or nodes - to facilitate the process:

By "fixing" non-compliant transactions the issue of dropped or rejected legit transactions would be addressed to some degree, and if primarily non-compliant transactions are mutated, then it could serve as wake up call for wallet software creators (and user's of such wallets), as the sentiment may shift from "let's pitchfork amaclin for messing with our transactions" to "let's create/use better wallets, which don't create bad transactions".

Once that happened, it could be considered to only accept low s signatures, first in form of a standard policy, and at some point it could enforced.

So is malleability attack still under way? I have a friend that had to move coins very urgently, he has just called me and asked me what's wrong and what should he do.

His transaction is not showing up on the other side.

Thanks guys!

Since you're giving me valid advice, I'll give you valid advice too: don't put all your eggs on the same basket

As for long term decentralization, we'll see. The system may fail, but competition may rise and prove to be even more up to the task (that's why some testing is important too).

Price to any currency does not matter. Currencies volatile to each other, so it is not possible to create non-volatile crypto.
If the price is not volatile to dollar - it will volatile to brasilian real.

You are confusing the price volatility of bitcoin with the utility of being able to transact internationally without the pain of banks or middle men.

For example: one of the problems to be figured out is how to get money across borders so that poor people can get the money they need without having to spend the whole day travelling from a poor village with no infrastructure or services to a town where they wait in line to get some money.

$100 goes to $85 after WU and middlemen have taken their cut at the sending end; goes to $75 after the person at the other end has traveled to pick-up their money and made the conversions. When you are poor, that loss of nearly $30 is a lot of money.

Stress testing of any kind is good. Problems will eventually find a solution where there is a need.

Analogy - why do people ask singers for their political views, like having a good voice somehow makes you a political genius?  Same goes for technical capability and economic / price speculation.

Nice idea.
What about privacy?
And what if someone runs the bot which converts low-S to high-S and my bot do the opposite?
What goal you want to achieve? Do you want to tighten transaction validation rules?
Isn't it better not to confirm txs with high-S by miners?

We have a consensus now. Do you want to change the rules? Are you against the current consensus?

Could you flip your bot and mutate signatures with high s values, to target users with well, "non-compliant" software?

Yo do not listen me. 
Malleability is not a problem for a network. Stress-tests can make the network even stronger.

May be you are successful for a short period of time to disrupt the network. But, there are too many stakeholders in bitcoin who are more able than you to keep the network safe. In the long run you'll lament that you have wasted your time to do some unselfish destructive work, while you could do some selfish constructive work. Good luck with your endeavour.

OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin
I want to prove that decentralized trustless system can not exists in long term.
It either transforms to centralized system or loses its security.

Understood, thank you.


Although the groundwork and the ideas that are the basis to Bitcoin were laid out throughout the years, Bitcoin is still quite innovative, so I'm not sure Satoshi started Bitcoin knowing he could develop it, finish it and release it.

Besides this, Satoshi seems to have had quite a few reasons to develop Bitcoin such as fleeing from banks, creating a trustless system, etc.

Despite this, you are obviously free to do something for no reason in particular, but I don't think you'll let this opportunity escape and you'll eventually put this "stress test" in use to prove a point (I think you're already proving it, unintentionally or not)

Some kind of pseudo-node. No code from any other client.

Just because I am able. Isn't it funny? I have not any other reason today. But... I have some ideas for future.
Why did Satoshi invent bitcoin? I really think he had the same reason - because he was able to do it.

Malleability is not a problem for bitcoin at all.
The major problem is that Tragedy_of_the_commons can not be solved by decentralized consensus

Take a look at this and this. Are applications using APIs from those block explorers affected?

Not so! (well, if the concept is broken, after all it isn't due to the substance of this thread.)

Harsher than I would have said; but there is a point there.  Often on these things what happens is that people who don't know have one view of the priorities, and people in the know have another. If someone's priorities differ they need to step up--- and sometimes that does happen but once they learn more their priorities change. See also table 1: http://fc15.ifca.ai/preproceedings/bitcoin/paper_9.pdf  the greatest pain vectors of malleability can be avoided simply with careful wallet design.

In the case of BIP62 one of the reasons it has not progressed is that we haven't had enough review capacity to achieve confidence that such a broad scoping change would actually achieve its goals and not cause collateral damage-- especially because with "random pain" mostly answerable via wallet design-- the goal of it becomes making multstep contracts secure... which is something that can't be approximate.

BIP66 pulled forward part of BIP62 that was done and ready.

Folks here like int03h suggest that nothing has been done, but the opposite is true-- in terms of easily malleability on ordinary transactions, IsStandard-like-checks almost completely cover it. Every known vector of malleability has been closed off that way, except the one where common wallets still emit random forms. If we could enforce lowS as a standardness rule this issue would likely no longer be a source of intermittent annoyance for ordinary transactions. Bitcoin Core has been ready for that for roughly two years. But since we don't want a world where everyone is forced to run Bitcoin Core (much less the latest version of Bitcoin Core) reality is limited by what improvements people adopt.

People don't even need to be developers to help-- I posted a list of highS producing addresses, if we can identify more software which produces this form and get it fixed then we'll be well positioned to move forward. Why are people still whining here instead of sluthing? Come on-- I'm not even asking anyone to write code.

FWIW, virtually every cryptocurrency (including litecoin) has the same kind of issue, even some promoted as "immune to malleability"... Even most created after this issue was well understood in bitcoin have not bothered learning from it. That this property existed in Bitcoin is unfortunate but easily justifiable, that so many others have slavishly replicated  this well known poor behavior, even when the Bitcoin community knew exactly what was needed to stop it completely, is something else entirely.  My own published alternative network work, the Elements Alpha testnet sidechain, eliminated this whole class of issue in a very complete and robust way-- but its approach is not easily applied to Bitcoin because the deployment would be disruptive. Fortunately, for what people are currently complaining about nothing that complete is required.

Statoshi has so many charts, I forgot to check it for that one, thanks So it's confirmed, when I made my transaction, attack was still ongoing.

Without a node with modified code how does one get around to doing what you're doing in an automated way?

Also, a follow up question, what are your main reasons behind this? Are you doing this to prove a point, like with the transaction spam attacks?

Sorry. This question is for everyone who reads this topic.
I respect your privacy.

Again .. what is it that you know about me that leads you to these conclusions? Nothing. So STFU bro. ( and by bro I mean asshat )

Bitcoin concept is broken. Nobody can fix it. Point.
I do not have any reason to do useless (in long term) things.

Because I am software developer either. I do not work in bitcoin-related industry.
You are asking something from the bitcoin core developers, but you are not paying them and even not contributing.
Is it correct behavior?

Lol .. funny. May I ask you the same question ? why don't "YOU" ? You seem very fond of it.

EDIT : And may I say .. you seem very interested in protecting the developers ... why is that ?
EDIT2: And frankly .. who the fuck are "you" to ask "me" what I have or haven't done lately?