> Replay is a solved problem. Point to this solved problem?
Your "solution" here is not a solution: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6f1urd/i_think_its_time_we_have_an_educated_discussion/diey21t/?context=3 <https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6f1urd/i_think_its_time_we_have_an_educated_discussion/diey21t/?context=3> > This is nothing but unfounded FUD. It is very simple to implement and > guaranteed to work eventually. It may be time consuming, but that is the only > truth here. The only risk is that of a long reorg, the same as double spend > attacks. Let's assume you invented a simple way to double-spend txns to self (which you haven't, fyi), then that is an issue in of itself as the point of bitcoin is to *prevent* double-spending to self. There would need to be much more time for the community to discuss the implications of wallets have a "double-spend to self" button in them. > What kind of "fungibility" does this FUD claim it destroys? Destroying cross- > chain fungibility is the very *intent* of replay protection. And it does not > destroy same-chain fungibility any more than any other miner spending. Yes it does destroy same-chain fungibility, as discussed on twitter [1], you're making miner coins special on both chains. > Lack of replay protection does not mean there is no coin. It effectively does. If people want to proceed blindly, ignoring replay, they're welcome to read about the consequences [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/taoeffect/status/872226556571131905 <https://twitter.com/taoeffect/status/872226556571131905> [2] http://gist.github.com/taoeffect/c910ebb16d9f6d248e9f1f3c6e10b1b8 <http://gist.github.com/taoeffect/c910ebb16d9f6d248e9f1f3c6e10b1b8> -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. > On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Luke Dashjr <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 10:39:28 PM Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not >> understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of >> experience with them. > > Replay is a solved problem. It can be improved on and made simpler, but at > this point, replay only occurs when the sender is either negligent or > intending it. > >> Both of the coin-splitting techniques given so far by the proponents BIP148 >> are also untenable: >> >> - Double-spending to self with nLockTime txns is insanely complicated, >> risky, not guaranteed to work, extremely time consuming, and would likely >> result in a massive increase in backlogged transactions and increased >> fees. > > This is nothing but unfounded FUD. It is very simple to implement and > guaranteed to work eventually. It may be time consuming, but that is the only > truth here. The only risk is that of a long reorg, the same as double spend > attacks. > >> - Mixing with 148 coinbase txns destroys fungibility. > > What kind of "fungibility" does this FUD claim it destroys? Destroying cross- > chain fungibility is the very *intent* of replay protection. And it does not > destroy same-chain fungibility any more than any other miner spending. > >> Without a coin, there is no real threat from BIP148. > > Lack of replay protection does not mean there is no coin. Replay protection is > equally a concern for the main (BIP148) chain and any legacy chains malicious > miners might choose to split off. And none of this changes the fact that such > miners will be unable to sell their legacycoins at Bitcoin market prices, > because whether other transactions are replayed or not, *their* coins won't be > valid on the main chain. > > Luke
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
