From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:13:13 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8737wrwvn2.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0Evf3B_NtmdKxc_M1xRQh-jSC4JzTHCx8Ez9RzCypvMg@mail.gmail.com>
Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> Should it be a requirement that ANY one-megabyte transaction that is valid
> under the existing rules also be valid under new rules?
>
> Pro: There could be expensive-to-validate transactions created and given a
> lockTime in the future stored somewhere safe. Their owners may have no
> other way of spending the funds (they might have thrown away the private
> keys), and changing validation rules to be more strict so that those
> transactions are invalid would be an unacceptable confiscation of funds.
Not just lockTime; potentially any tx locked away in a safe.
Consider low-S enforcement: high chance a non-expert user will be unable
to spend an old transaction. They need to compromise their privacy
and/or spend time and money. A milder "confiscation" but a more likely
one.
By that benchmark, we should aim for "reasonable certainty". A
transaction which would never have been generated by any known software
is the minimum bar. Adding "...which would have to be deliberately
stupid with many redundant OP_CHECKSIG etc" surpasses it. The only extra
safeguard I can think of is clear, widespread notification of the
change.
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-01 3:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-28 14:06 Gavin Andresen
2015-10-31 3:43 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2015-11-01 14:36 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-01 17:28 ` jl2012
2015-11-01 23:46 ` Tier Nolan
2015-11-02 0:23 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-02 0:33 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-11-02 1:30 ` Tier Nolan
2015-11-02 4:15 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-02 6:12 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-02 20:33 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-11-02 22:12 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-03 5:32 ` jl2012
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=8737wrwvn2.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gavinandresen@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