MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <45F53199-C8AC-4DD3-B746-D56F9F01946B@xbt.hk>
References: <A182F080-F154-4F05-B2F1-21B90E469267@xbt.hk>
	<CAAt2M1_=8jDWuyO5_n8aXXDVYypvGQ2uL6zkJNn1ZnQOaXM6nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<311FE02A-F3B5-4F88-B6C8-F0E78CC46903@xbt.hk>
	<CAAt2M1_cQTfaDyQkaixeFB5Ubi35fSOs9Ks74WZEehtFk__B3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<45F53199-C8AC-4DD3-B746-D56F9F01946B@xbt.hk>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:29:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAt2M1945e4jpy_eoZBJnyztVXjFVTJAjMc-u45gMf4ich8sEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork
Precedence: list

--94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Den 25 jan. 2017 08:22 skrev "Johnson Lau" <jl2012@xbt.hk>:

Assuming Alice is paying Bob with an old style time-locked tx. Under your
proposal, after the hardfork, Bob is still able to confirm the time-locked
tx on both networks. To fulfil your new rules he just needs to send the
outputs to himself again (with different tx format). But as Bob gets all
the money on both forks, it is already a successful replay


Why would Alice be sitting on an old-style signed transaction with UTXO:s
none of which she controls (paying somebody else), with NO ability to
substitute the transaction for one where she DOES control an output,
leaving her unable to be the one spending the replay protecting child
transaction?

--94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature" dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">De=
n 25 jan. 2017 08:22 skrev &quot;Johnson Lau&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jl=
2012@xbt.hk">jl2012@xbt.hk</a>&gt;:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>Assuming Alice is paying=
 Bob with an old style time-locked tx. Under your proposal, after the hardf=
ork, Bob is still able to confirm the time-locked tx on both networks. To f=
ulfil your new rules he just needs to send the outputs to himself again (wi=
th different tx format). But as Bob gets all the money on both forks, it is=
 already a successful replay</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Why would Alice be sitting on an old-=
style signed transaction with UTXO:s none of which she controls (paying som=
ebody else), with NO ability to substitute the transaction for one where sh=
e DOES control an output, leaving her unable to be the one spending the rep=
lay protecting child transaction?=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=
=3D"auto"></div></div>

--94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046--