From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SHA1 collisions make Git vulnerable to attakcs by third-parties, not just repo maintainers
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:14:44 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhZ1UqOLqz_PVjjrE8Cbte_Y160Gq7P7EWf6cRKjMcDEQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D36DB0BD-C805-4346-B425-77D5B29582E5@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]
On Feb 25, 2017 14:09, "Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Peter,
I really, really don’t want to get into it but segwit has many aspects that
are less appealing, not least of which being the amount of time it would
take to reach the critical mass.
Surely there's a number of alternative approaches which could be explored,
even if only to make a fair assessment of a best response?
Any alternative to move us away from RIPEMD160 would require:
* A drafting of a softfork proposal, implementation, testing, review.
* A new address format
* Miners accepting the new consensus rules
* Wallets adopting the new address format, both on the sender side and
receiver side (which requires new signatures).
I.e., exactly the same as segwit, for which most of these are already done.
And it would still only apply to wallets adopting it.
--
Pieter
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1759 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-25 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.22137.1487974823.31141.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2017-02-24 23:49 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 1:01 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 12:04 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 14:50 ` Leandro Coutinho
2017-02-25 16:10 ` Ethan Heilman
2017-02-25 17:45 ` Shin'ichiro Matsuo
2017-02-27 9:15 ` Henning Kopp
2017-02-25 18:19 ` Alice Wonder
2017-02-25 18:36 ` Ethan Heilman
2017-02-25 19:12 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 20:42 ` Watson Ladd
2017-02-25 20:57 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 20:53 ` Russell O'Connor
2017-02-25 21:04 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 21:21 ` Dave Scotese
2017-02-25 21:34 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 21:40 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 21:54 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 22:14 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2017-02-25 22:34 ` Ethan Heilman
2017-02-26 6:26 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-26 6:36 ` Pieter Wuille
2017-02-26 7:16 ` Steve Davis
[not found] ` <CAPg+sBirowtHqUT5GUJf9hmDEACKVX19HAon-rrz7GmO8OBsNg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-02-26 16:53 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 23:09 ` Leandro Coutinho
2017-02-23 18:14 Peter Todd
2017-02-23 21:28 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-23 23:57 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-02-24 10:04 ` Tim Ruffing
2017-02-24 15:18 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-02-24 16:30 ` Tim Ruffing
2017-02-24 17:29 ` Aymeric Vitte
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=CAPg+sBhZ1UqOLqz_PVjjrE8Cbte_Y160Gq7P7EWf6cRKjMcDEQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=steven.charles.davis@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