I’ve three questions with regard to replay safety.
Q1 => Some non-standard scripts (like x + 2 = 5) don’t require signatures (so naturally no SIGHASH_FORKID) to spend the UTXOs. Are these UTXOs and transactions nonetheless vulnerable to replays?
Q2 => I’ve learn the paperwork from the inception of Bitcoin Money and realized that the legacy transaction digest algorithm will not be getting used anymore. From my understanding, the 4-byte sighash sort is appened on the rear of the digested transaction enter (Each for SigVersion::BASE and SigVersion::WITNESS_V0) and if a novel sighash flag is used, the uint256 SignatureHash consequence can be fully totally different. The SignatureHash perform within the src/script/interpreter.cpp file of Bitcoin Money solely permits BIP-143 digest algorithm when SIGHASH_FORKID is in use. What if Bitcoin Money builders solely enforced the usage of SIGHASH_FORKID and embraced Segwit? Is a novel sighash flag not sufficient to forestall replays?
Q3 => If a novel sighash flag (SIGHASH_FORKID) will not be sufficient to forestall replays, then is it due to the malleability subject on legacy transactions?
I’ve three questions with regard to replay safety.
Q1 => Some non-standard scripts (like x + 2 = 5) don’t require signatures (so naturally no SIGHASH_FORKID) to spend the UTXOs. Are these UTXOs and transactions nonetheless vulnerable to replays?
Q2 => I’ve learn the paperwork from the inception of Bitcoin Money and realized that the legacy transaction digest algorithm will not be getting used anymore. From my understanding, the 4-byte sighash sort is appened on the rear of the digested transaction enter (Each for SigVersion::BASE and SigVersion::WITNESS_V0) and if a novel sighash flag is used, the uint256 SignatureHash consequence can be fully totally different. The SignatureHash perform within the src/script/interpreter.cpp file of Bitcoin Money solely permits BIP-143 digest algorithm when SIGHASH_FORKID is in use. What if Bitcoin Money builders solely enforced the usage of SIGHASH_FORKID and embraced Segwit? Is a novel sighash flag not sufficient to forestall replays?
Q3 => If a novel sighash flag (SIGHASH_FORKID) will not be sufficient to forestall replays, then is it due to the malleability subject on legacy transactions?
