From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect•com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:12:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7117CE7C-3C6F-4342-8A43-072605EB3D1E@taoeffect.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSU+UtbJSSAhf0-Sd0GH-RGnZmv+WHWtFV2zHFW2q6_yg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2588 bytes --]
Hey Greg,
It wasn't my intention to insult anyone (a bit defensive?).
Maybe this is yet another example of a recurring criticism of Core: that core doesn't community these issues very well to journalists / reports / media / community outside of this list.
Because outside of this list it's been all about those 148 coins, and almost zero mention of replay attacks.
> BIP149 is arguably something of another matter in particular because
> it has a time-frame that allows dealing with replay and other issues--
> and particularly because it has a time-frame that can allow for the
> avoidance of a meaningful fork at all.
Are there other, more reasonable / feasible ways of addressing replay attacks in Bitcoin / BIP149 scenario?
Cheers,
Greg
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
> On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph•org <mailto:greg@xiph•org>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not
>> understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of experience
>> with them.
>
> Please don't insult our community-- the issues with replay were
> pointed out by us to Ethereum in advance and were cited specifically
> in prior hardfork discussions long before Ethereum started editing
> their ledger for the economic benefit of its centralized
> administrators.
>
> The lack of extensive discussion on these issues you're seeing is
> rather symptomatic of engineers that take stability seriously not
> taking BIP148 seriously; not symptomatic of people not knowing about
> them. The same concerns also applies to all these HF proposals (which
> for some reason you don't mention), arguably even stronger. The same
> basic pattern exists: There are people that just don't care about the
> technical issues who have made up their minds, and so you don't see
> technical discussion. Those people who do see the issues already
> called out the proposals as being ill-advised. Replay isn't even the
> largest of the technical issues (network partitioning, for example, is
> a much larger one).
>
> BIP149 is arguably something of another matter in particular because
> it has a time-frame that allows dealing with replay and other issues--
> and particularly because it has a time-frame that can allow for the
> avoidance of a meaningful fork at all.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5952 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-06 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-06 22:39 Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:02 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-06-06 23:12 ` Tao Effect [this message]
2017-06-07 13:25 ` Nick Johnson
2017-06-07 16:27 ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07 17:35 ` Nick Johnson
2017-06-08 5:44 ` Conner Fromknecht
2017-06-08 6:38 ` Nick Johnson
2017-06-06 23:08 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-06-06 23:19 ` Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:20 ` Anthony Towns
2017-06-06 23:27 ` Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:31 ` Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:59 ` Kekcoin
2017-06-07 0:04 ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07 0:19 ` Kekcoin
2017-06-07 0:26 ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07 0:29 ` Kekcoin
2017-06-07 0:38 ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07 0:46 ` Kekcoin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-06-06 20:43 Tao Effect
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=7117CE7C-3C6F-4342-8A43-072605EB3D1E@taoeffect.com \
--to=contact@taoeffect$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=greg@xiph$(echo .)org \
/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