Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8CAF98C for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:48:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtprelay05.ispgateway.de (smtprelay05.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.98]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EF5BF5 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [89.13.169.254] (helo=anonymous) by smtprelay05.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxMD5-0002RD-5u for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:48:43 +0100 From: xor To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Reply-To: xor@freenetproject.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:48:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1581446.3ZPnhFUSFq@1337h4x0r> Organization: Freenet Project User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-68-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1717824.ciA8dPc2sq"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Df-Sender: eG9yQGZyZWVtYWlsLmJvZ2VydC5kZQ== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:49:22 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Contradiction in BIP65 text? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:48:43 -0000 --nextPart1717824.ciA8dPc2sq Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" BIP65 [1] says this: > Motivation > [...] > However, the nLockTime field can't prove that it is impossible to spend a > transaction output until some time in the future, as there is no way to > know if a valid signature for a different transaction spending that output > has been created. I'd interpret "can't prove that it is impossible to spend" = cannot be used for freezing funds. Then later, at "Motivation", it says: > Freezing Funds > > In addition to using cold storage, hardware wallets, and P2SH multisig > outputs to control funds, now funds can be frozen in UTXOs directly on the > blockchain. This clearly says that funds can be frozen. Can the BIP65-thing be used to freeze funds or can it not be? Notice: I am by no means someone who is able to read Bitcoin script. I'm rather an end user. So maybe I'm misinterpreting the document? I'm nevertheless trying to provide a "neutral" review from an outsider who's trying to understand whats new in 0.11.2. You may want to discard my opinion if you think that BIP65 is aimed at an audience with more experience. Greetings and thanks for your work! [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/d0cab0379aa50cdf4a9d1ab9e29c3366034ad77f/bip-0065.mediawiki --nextPart1717824.ciA8dPc2sq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABCAAGBQJWRlq2AAoJEMtmZ+8tjWt52R0P/iPr7fQIcSOArex7Z/uLEvQW YYLxGdj6bPznIcPAhSLCOxB56PjCNLUphE2hVVYxQ4SHftS+rWVcxUNu6flCV22P 7oA3NV6rBKVcdSqinO7UxWBrqGcFm1a01sFBtbmJUiQ+da9A/kOeVTH6CUVwAmXL Fd2rMjxwT0HWRP89IEAbRbGgfGoM1OfZ/ePrPNcWXJMjNsWszugF+j4eZYFyiRQK 5nLQJuG7lgv1ojgAzuySt8PdL8xqQKCu9t2Ont6hICz+MK+uKfCyiuqemh0U/3kV /I6S8gmsRS7U+2YhEi18Wxg0SCCuHua/+YB4mtIZ+9kijwUOSZ45HWAD1ZjPHeTE OcsrcVWu1aqEZt70m2tDXE/Ld1YSIh7jt3OPmlJ5tthD0jFaF7nrKnhyK7gjXi+w PfmcEUt+jFHMzlXZ2FJte3DqiWRQmc3N8bZcLm7c2tm/CuYx55g4nAEVEV2Qn4Jt cNttfRsgRLMPn8p37dJD2A+rBxvRjkDj5FNNwaTXb1SrQGRdaxe5MgYRQhIxj0su u9oUwB1nVHq+JFCml2XBwJR0N63JGxeFO8BunmmGiypFX95ksqrlG5hTKIAQRIwf Kn5TqKLfDvYwVyaAP10A0yoPuTz/q+t3zn1iyx2uvenE41gpYB86wGOutUHyZsvB /GFMfelyO6dims9U8kVb =Iv34 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1717824.ciA8dPc2sq--