From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt•hk>
To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:42:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79668AE7-B05D-41F8-A6DF-EADC05143523@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1945e4jpy_eoZBJnyztVXjFVTJAjMc-u45gMf4ich8sEQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]
> On 25 Jan 2017, at 15:29, Natanael <natanael.l@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>
> Den 25 jan. 2017 08:22 skrev "Johnson Lau" <jl2012@xbt•hk <mailto:jl2012@xbt•hk>>:
> Assuming Alice is paying Bob with an old style time-locked tx. Under your proposal, after the hardfork, Bob is still able to confirm the time-locked tx on both networks. To fulfil your new rules he just needs to send the outputs to himself again (with different tx format). But as Bob gets all the money on both forks, it is already a successful replay
>
> Why would Alice be sitting on an old-style signed transaction with UTXO:s none of which she controls (paying somebody else), with NO ability to substitute the transaction for one where she DOES control an output, leaving her unable to be the one spending the replay protecting child transaction?
If Alice still has full control, she is already protected by my proposal, which does not require any protecting child transaction.
But in many cases she may not have full control. Make it clearer, consider that’s actually a 2-of-2 multisig of Alice and Bob, and the time locked tx is sending to Bob. If the time locked tx is unprotected in the first place, Bob will get all the money from both forks anyway, as there is no reason for him to renegotiate with Alice.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2322 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-25 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-24 14:33 Johnson Lau
2017-01-24 18:52 ` Tom Harding
2017-01-25 4:03 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-25 19:32 ` Tom Harding
2017-01-27 20:47 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-27 22:11 ` Tom Harding
2017-01-25 1:22 ` Natanael
2017-01-25 7:05 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-25 7:15 ` Natanael
2017-01-25 7:21 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-25 7:29 ` Natanael
2017-01-25 7:42 ` Johnson Lau [this message]
2017-01-26 3:29 ` Matt Corallo
2017-01-26 7:03 ` Chris Priest
2017-01-26 7:14 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-26 8:59 ` Chris Priest
2017-01-26 9:20 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-26 10:55 ` Edmund Edgar
2017-01-26 15:58 ` Tom Harding
2017-01-26 17:21 ` Gavin Andresen
2017-01-26 17:41 ` Matt Corallo
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=79668AE7-B05D-41F8-A6DF-EADC05143523@xbt.hk \
--to=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=natanael.l@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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