From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt•hk>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 04:36:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9AFB2D9C-73E9-45F4-AB21-6899F55AAA94@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201902192024.13243.luke@dashjr.org>
> On 20 Feb 2019, at 4:24 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
> Even besides NOINPUT, such a wallet would simply never show a second payment
> to the same address (or at least never show it as confirmed, until
> successfully spent).
This is totally unrelated to NOINPUT. You can make a wallet like this today already, and tell your payer not to reuse address.
>
> At least if tx versions are used, it isn't possible to indicate this
> requirement in current Bitcoin L1 addresses. scriptPubKey might not be
> impossible to encode, but it isn't really clear what the purpose of doing so
> is.
It sounds like you actually want to tag such outputs as scriptPubKey, so you could encode this requirement in the address?
If we allow NOINPUT unconditionally (i.e. all v1 addresses are spendable with NOINPUT), you may only create a different proposal to indicate such special requirements
>
> If people don't want to use NOINPUT, they should just not use it. Trying to
> implement a nanny in the protocol is inappropriate and limits what developers
> can do who actually want the features.
>
> Luke
>
>
> On Tuesday 19 February 2019 19:22:07 Johnson Lau wrote:
>> This only depends on the contract between the payer and payee. If the
>> contract says address reuse is unacceptable, it’s unacceptable. It has
>> nothing to do with how the payee spends the coin. We can’t ban address
>> reuse at protocol level (unless we never prune the chain), so address reuse
>> could only be prevented at social level.
>>
>> Using NOINPUT is also a very weak excuse: NOINPUT always commit to the
>> value. If the payer reused an address but for different amount, the payee
>> can’t claim the coin is lost due to previous NOINPUT use. A much stronger
>> way is to publish the key after a coin is well confirmed.
>>
>>> On 20 Feb 2019, at 3:04 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday 13 December 2018 12:32:44 Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>> While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other
>>>> proposals require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of
>>>> tagging?
>>>
>>> Yes, this seems to break the situation where a wallet wants to use
>>> NOINPUT for everything, including normal L1 payments. For example, in the
>>> scenario where address reuse will be rejected/ignored by the recipient
>>> unconditionally, and the payee is considered to have burned their
>>> bitcoins by attempting it.
>>>
>>> Luke
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-19 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-13 12:32 Johnson Lau
2018-12-17 15:48 ` Ruben Somsen
2018-12-17 20:08 ` Johnson Lau
2018-12-18 10:48 ` Johnson Lau
2018-12-19 22:09 ` Christian Decker
2018-12-20 11:00 ` Johnson Lau
2018-12-20 17:20 ` Christian Decker
2018-12-20 18:04 ` Johnson Lau
2018-12-21 11:15 ` Christian Decker
2018-12-21 16:21 ` Johnson Lau
2018-12-21 11:40 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-12-21 15:37 ` Johnson Lau
2018-12-22 14:25 ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-12-22 16:56 ` Johnson Lau
2018-12-24 11:47 ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-01-31 6:04 ` Anthony Towns
2019-02-01 9:36 ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-02-08 19:01 ` Jonas Nick
2019-02-09 10:01 ` Alejandro Ranchal Pedrosa
2019-02-09 16:48 ` Johnson Lau
2019-02-10 4:46 ` Anthony Towns
2019-02-09 16:54 ` Jonas Nick
2019-02-09 10:15 ` Johnson Lau
2019-02-09 16:52 ` Jonas Nick
2019-02-09 17:43 ` Johnson Lau
2019-02-19 19:04 ` Luke Dashjr
2019-02-19 19:22 ` Johnson Lau
2019-02-19 20:24 ` Luke Dashjr
2019-02-19 20:36 ` Johnson Lau [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=9AFB2D9C-73E9-45F4-AB21-6899F55AAA94@xbt.hk \
--to=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(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