Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 827901C17 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBFD806 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF61A38A0C83; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:190219:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::iSlbbb7DDUdJlecH:bsyyp X-Hashcash: 1:25:190219:jl2012@xbt.hk::OTN67qamU5qDVTpq:aigYc From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Johnson Lau Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:03 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748) References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk> In-Reply-To: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk> X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201902191904.04412.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:22:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:32 -0000 On Thursday 13 December 2018 12:32:44 Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote: > While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other proposals > require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of tagging? Yes, this seems to break the situation where a wallet wants to use NOINPUT for everything, including normal L1 payments. For example, in the scenario where address reuse will be rejected/ignored by the recipient unconditionally, and the payee is considered to have burned their bitcoins by attempting it. Luke