BIP 54: mention recent ML discussion and 64-byte transactions limitation#2208
Merged
Merged
Conversation
jonatack
added
the
BIP Update by Owner
danielabrozzoni
left a comment
danielabrozzoni
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me! I only left a mini nit, feel free to ignore
darosior
force-pushed
the
2607_wording_64byte_txs
branch
from
eacef5c to
2467d7d
Compare
murchandamus
reviewed
Jul 8, 2026
murchandamus
left a comment
murchandamus
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. A couple optional nits.
darosior
force-pushed
the
2607_wording_64byte_txs
branch
from
2467d7d to
b274e14
Compare
darosior
force-pushed
the
2607_wording_64byte_txs
branch
from
b274e14 to
7c7e2f1
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Mention in the rationale section a recently proposed alternative to invalidating 64-byte transactions. Narrow the claim that invalidating 64-byte transactions fixes the vulnerability without requiring SPV verifiers to implement a workaround: it is possible to come up with esoteric constructions that would expect an SPV proof for 64-byte transactions and would need to be patched, so it can't be claimed generally.