The current proposal is that a 64-byte signature will be used for the default “signing all” sighash, and 65-byte for other sighash types. The space saved will allow a few more txs in a block, so I think it worths doing. However, this also makes witness weight estimation more difficult in multisig cases.
This idea of signing witness weight has been brought up before. I think the concern is the difficulty to estimate the witness weight for complex scripts, which need this feature most. So it will work when it is not needed, and will not work when it is needed. Is there any script example that witness size malleability is unavoidable? > On 7 Dec 2018, at 12:57 AM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > One more item to consider is "signature covers witness weight". > > While signing the witness weight doesn't completely eliminate witness > malleability (of the kind that can cause grief for compact blocks), it does > eliminate the worst kind of witness malleability from the user's perspective, > the kind where malicious relay nodes increase the amount of witness data and > therefore reduce the overall fee-rate of the transaction. Generally users > should strive to construct their Bitcoin Scripts in such a way that witness > malleability isn't possible, but as you are probably aware, this can be quite > difficult to achieve as Scripts become more complex and maybe isn't even > possible for some complex Scripts. > > Given the new fixed-sized signature of the Schnorr BIP, it becomes much > easier to compute the final witness weight prior to signing. In complex > multi-party signing protocol, the final witness weight might not be known at > signing time for everyone involved, so the "signature covers witness weight" > ought to be optional. > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
