From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream•io>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:46:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKkPrVeqv3Xitp42e1mCqxj3pMSOUW_pTTrb36jc9w71Vg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201610022128.52401.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 642 bytes --]
> But I would argue that in this scenario, the only way it
> would become invalid is the equivalent of a double-spend... and therefore
> it
> may be acceptable in relation to this argument.
>
The values returned by OP_COUNT_ACKS vary in their exact value depending on
which block this transaction ends up in. While the proposed use of this
operation is somewhat less objectionable (although still objectionable to
me), nothing stops users from using OP_EQUALVERIFY and and causing their
transaction fluctuate between acceptable and unacceptable, with no party
doing anything like a double spend. This is a major problem with the
proposal.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 928 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-02 21:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-02 15:49 Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-02 16:17 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 17:00 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-02 17:11 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 17:18 ` Andrew Johnson
2016-10-02 17:24 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 21:28 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-10-02 21:46 ` Russell O'Connor [this message]
2016-10-02 22:36 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
[not found] ` <CAMZUoKnE9VNnUHrDTtZOroBp=SC_eY1fEAsEOz=4b1=5v_wHaA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-10-02 23:00 ` [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: " Russell O'Connor
[not found] ` <CAKzdR-oxpDdXEcPTYtj6os58cVMgwoqyXvu5UMMQzD3QbvMtxA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-10-02 23:26 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Russell O'Connor
2016-10-02 21:54 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-10-02 17:26 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-02 17:34 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 18:17 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-10-24 17:37 ` Johnson Lau
2016-10-25 16:38 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-25 17:45 ` Johnson Lau
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=CAMZUoKkPrVeqv3Xitp42e1mCqxj3pMSOUW_pTTrb36jc9w71Vg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=roconnor@blockstream$(echo .)io \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(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