3
1
References:
https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/replay-protected-sighash.md
https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2018-nov-upgrade.md
It looks to me like at the original fork point, Bitcoin-ABC added an extra value 0x40 called SIGHASH_FORKID that is xor'ed with the standard SIGHASH flags to produce a SIGHASH byte that is incompatible with Bitcoin Core. This provides replay protection for all transactions that are signed with ECDSA pubkeys.
Questions:
Is the FORKID updated with each "protocol upgrade" for example the recent "Magnetic Anomaly" upgrade? If not, why not?
It looks like the May 2019 upgrade will change the FORKID to 0xFF0001 but the spec mentions "Wallets that follow the upgrade should not have to change anything." -- how is that possible?
Did Bitcoin-SV change its FORKID for its recent hard fork away from Bitcoin-ABC? Is there any replay protection at all between those two chains?
>Do you mean May 2019? (not 2019)
Has BCH incremented the FORKID with every hard fork? There have been a few already and I don't think they have.
Aren't wallets literally the thing that USES SIGHASH? Do we just mean SPV wallets here? Wouldn't they need to follow the FORKID rule to get tx included in the chain?
I do not understand the logic with
< – pinhead – 2018-11-24T18:45:23.457
0xdead, what it happening there?1) No, may 2018 2) No, ForkId is changed if a client that supports current consensus rules but not the rules of next consensus is running after the next fork date comes. It’s always been 0 on main Bitcoin Cash (not the dead forks) 3) Yes, that rule is confusing and illogical. It assumes that wallets dont need to upgrade for hard forks and only their backends do. 4) Nodes change the valid forkid value in case of a hard fork they don’t support, to keep that old chain alive and with 2way replay protection. Don’t hesitate to ask more questions if something’s unclear. – MCCCS – 2018-11-24T19:36:04.383
Got it thank you. My misunderstanding was that FORKID is switched in by non-upgrading nodes on the fork time. I had that backwards :-) – pinhead – 2018-11-25T00:02:06.390