From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: Mike Brooks <m@ib•tc>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smaller Transactions with PubRef
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 14:22:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <-vfdrKtX7fPIncbPlX7CkHYD0NjZDz6VUjlkUrCO-feq3zaQpXRl8Wu_HP7CRXm1sc_p0B0IZjnTxiHfz_saXWL5W6ax9CVnddaDfPQvTBE=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALFqKjSrQ260XfYtdvd9N=ZKZvJqE2iz+reGtBNpq++br9S1ig@mail.gmail.com>
Good morning Mike,
The issue with SCRIPT re-evaluation is that reorgs cause more processing to be done by nodes.
Floating-point Nakamoto Consensus does not help here, since a node can receive the lower-scored block first, and *then* a higher-scored block, and thus will ***still*** observe a reorg since the chain tip is replaced with a higher-scored block later.
This still increases the processing load on validating fullnodes, and prevents any kind of pruning from working for validating fullnodes.
A miner can also still mount a DoS on validating fullnodes, with `OP_PUBREF` and Floating-Point Nakamoto Consensus by re-mining the same block, and broadcasting a block if it has higher score than the previous chain tip.
This locks the blockchain ***and*** increases the load on fullnodes, which have to re-validate uses of `OP_PUBREF` that might refer to the chain tip.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
> Hey ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Re-orgs should be solved in a different way.
>
> Best Regards,
> Micahel
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:36 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> wrote:
>
> > Good morning Mike,
> >
> > Hard NAK.
> >
> > The responses to the original posting already pointed out important problems with this:
> >
> > * Encourages address reuse, hurting fungibility and privacy.
> > * Prevents pruning, since access to previous blocks must always be available in order to validate.
> > * Optimized implementation requires creating yet another index to previous block data, increasing requirements on fullnodes.
> > * Requires SCRIPT to be re-evaluated on transactions arriving in newblocks, to protect against reorgs of the chaintip, and in particular `OP_PUBREF` references to near the chaintip.
> >
> > None of these issues have been addressed in your current proposal.
> > The proposal looks at clients only, without considering what validators have to implement in order to validate new blocks with this opcode.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ZmnSCPxj
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-02 14:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-01 5:09 Mike Brooks
2020-08-02 0:36 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-08-02 1:12 ` Mike Brooks
2020-08-02 14:22 ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='-vfdrKtX7fPIncbPlX7CkHYD0NjZDz6VUjlkUrCO-feq3zaQpXRl8Wu_HP7CRXm1sc_p0B0IZjnTxiHfz_saXWL5W6ax9CVnddaDfPQvTBE=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=m@ib$(echo .)tc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox