From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach•de>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] HTTP REST API for bitcoind
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:17:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ksll7m$o9u$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130723093759.GB6198@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
On 07/23/2013 11:37 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> Is it planned to expose the UXTO set of a given address? That would be
>> useful for SPV wallets to be able to swipe a previously unknown private
>> key (e.g. paper wallet).
>
> Depends what you mean by expose.
>
> Maintaining an address/script-indexed UTXO is generally useful, in
> particular for things like sweeping addresses. I certainly have
> less problems with 'exposing' this than exposing a fully-indexed
> block chain history.
>
> However, and I expect that's what your question is about, this isn't
> really useful for SPV (or less) nodes, as there is no way to
> authenticate this data. If you can fake a UTXO entry, you can make
> a peer believe anything about their balance, potentially resulting
> in creating a valid transaction that sends change it didn't know
> was there as fee to miners. Other than for normal block chain data,
> there is no way to detect this without at least partial validation.
>
> The only way to do this safely at an SPV security assumption, is by
> having an address-indexed committed merkle UTXO-set tree, like the
> one proposed by Alan Reiner, and being implemented by Mark
> Friedenback. I know Michael Gronager has something similar implemented,
> but I don't know whether it is script-indexed. To be actually useful,
> it likely needs to be enforced by miners - putting a significant
> burden on validation nodes. Still, if it can be done efficiently,
> I think this would be worth it, but more research is needed first in
> any case.
>
> Regarding sweeping keys in the first place - I think using those,
> and relying on address-indexed UTXO sets or blockchains to import
> them, is an idea that doesn't scale very well in the first place.
> If it is for things like scratch card or physical coins, with a
> pre-set value, the obvious solution IMHO is storing the crediting
> transaction with its merkle path together with the key. If that's
> not possible, just the txid:vout of the credit output can suffice.
> Yes, that's more data than is necessary now, but it's so much more
> trivial to use.
I certainly don't want to push ideas that won't work for whatever
reason. So I fully respect whatever you decide regarding that feature.
Personally I have never felt any need for being able to sweep paper
wallets, I am more or less just relaying the need of users.
Let me just say this:
Sweeping paper wallets is a common feature request. People switch to
centralized services just for getting that.
It is my understanding that for the usecase, an address-indexed UXTO is
enough. So you probably don't need to worry about script-indexed for now.
Security issues could be mitigated by applying trust to the REST server,
e.g. because its your own or the one of your apps vendor. Of course,
link-level security would be needed for this (e.g. SSL).
Paper wallets that include the necessary additional information is
something I have been thinking about. I see some issues:
- Paper wallets are already quite widespread. You still won't be able to
sweep those.
- Some people like to "top up" a paper wallet or even just sweep a
portion of it. That would not be possible, and in some cases even lead
to loss of coins because of the "involuntary fee" you described.
- Does the necessary info fit into a QR code?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-23 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-22 19:42 Jeff Garzik
2013-07-22 22:06 ` Michael Hendricks
2013-07-23 8:27 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-07-23 8:45 ` Michael Gronager
2013-07-23 9:37 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 9:53 ` Michael Gronager
2013-07-23 10:17 ` Andreas Schildbach [this message]
2013-07-23 10:27 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 9:30 ` Andy Parkins
2013-07-23 9:42 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 9:52 ` Andy Parkins
2013-07-23 9:56 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 10:02 ` Andy Parkins
2013-07-23 10:06 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 9:47 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-23 10:00 ` Andy Parkins
2013-07-23 10:17 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-23 11:45 ` Andy Parkins
2013-07-23 10:19 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 10:29 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-07-23 10:36 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 15:48 ` Michael Hendricks
2013-07-23 19:36 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-08-10 20:30 ` Rune Kjær Svendsen
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='ksll7m$o9u$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=andreas@schildbach$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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