From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream•io>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: OP_CHECKBLOCKATHEIGHT
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 22:20:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201609232220.41783.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKnY7s1b75Z_0QCb2hh-Q_hCE4-9dZ9tY58HaUQy6=aCbw@mail.gmail.com>
In the innocent use case of this opcode, a double-spend has already occurred,
and this should be a strict improvement. In the non-innocent abuse of this
opcode, I don't see that it's any worse than simply double-spending.
Would this proposal be better or otherwise more acceptable, if a specified
height more recent than 100 blocks deep causes the script to fail? This would
increase delays in recovering the double-spend situation of course... but less
than 24h.
Luke
On Friday, September 23, 2016 1:43:15 PM Russell O'Connor wrote:
> I believe Bitcoin currently enjoys the property that during an "innocent"
> re-org, i.e. a reorg in which no affected transactions are being double
> spent, all affected transactions can always eventually get replayed, so
> long as the re-org depth is less than 100.
>
> My concern with this proposed operation is that it would destroy this
> property.
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
>
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This BIP describes a new opcode (OP_CHECKBLOCKATHEIGHT) for the Bitcoin
> > scripting system to address reissuing bitcoin transactions when the coins
> > they
> > spend have been conflicted/double-spent.
> >
> > https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbah/bip-cbah.mediawiki
> >
> > Does this seem like a good idea/approach?
> >
> > Luke
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-23 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-23 9:57 Luke Dashjr
2016-09-23 13:43 ` Russell O'Connor
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgQGC695mkyze+mVTZZoQN1mh+1y32u-D6Yv1R7nXWPDcg@mail.gmail.com>
2016-09-23 18:57 ` Gregory Maxwell
2016-09-23 20:02 ` Peter Todd
2016-09-23 22:20 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2016-09-23 23:43 ` Gregory Maxwell
2016-09-23 14:37 ` Tom
2016-09-23 22:34 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-09-24 0:08 ` Dave Scotese
2016-09-24 9:37 ` Tom
2016-09-23 16:18 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-01 4:01 ` Rusty Russell
2016-10-01 5:02 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-10-05 2:15 ` Nathan Cook
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=201609232220.41783.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=roconnor@blockstream$(echo .)io \
/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