Another lie from MtGox:[10/02/14 15:08:48] <@ne0futur> epscy: the problem is ackowledged
[10/02/14 15:09:04] <@ne0futur> Oh there is a problem in the Bitcoin protocol, known since at least 2011 (see the link I gave). But for normal applications, not involving unconfirmed transactions, it shouldnt cause any severe problems because wallets can handle it locally.
[10/02/14 15:09:07] ne0futur: what does that mean?
[10/02/14 15:09:12] <@ne0futur>
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/02/10/mt-gox-blames-bitcoin-core-developer-greg-maxwell-responds/[10/02/14 15:09:31] <@ne0futur> the disagreement is on how to fix it
[10/02/14 15:10:06] <@ne0futur> one option is putting much more load on the client who cant trust the transaction hash on the blockchain
[10/02/14 15:10:10] <@ne0futur> as I understand it
...
[10/02/14 15:15:16]
ne0futur the problem was acknowledged in May 2011:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8392.0. The patches were submitted in late 2012:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blame/master/src/script.cpp. Stop repeating "the problem was acknowledged" - it sounds really pointless
[10/02/14 15:15:50] <@ne0futur> ibtc:
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Transaction_Malleability&action=history[10/02/14 15:15:53] MtGox had a sloppy implementation for transaction signature format which made it vulnerable
[10/02/14 15:16:00]
<@ne0futur> but documented only in 2013 for client developpers[10/02/14 15:16:35] What, DER standard was documented in 2013???
[10/02/14 15:16:50] Do you actually understand what you are talking about?
[10/02/14 15:40:24] "[10/02/14 15:16:00] <@ne0futur> but documented only in 2013 for client developpers" <- yet another lie from MtGox.
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Protocol_specification&oldid=7624 Edited on 24 April 2011: "Signatures use DER encoding to pack the r and s components into a single byte stream (because this is what OpenSSL produces by default). "
Specification was updated in April 2011, clarifying that the format for the signatures is DER encoding (which, when strictly followed, would always produce the correct signature accepted by all clients, not just OpenSSL ones). Apparently, MagicalTux didn't know about that. And I highly doubt he learn about it any time earlier than a few days ago.
What a bunch of liars. All of them.
