Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E72ABA2 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:38:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from homiemail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D8A8A6 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:38:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098AE10AFB5; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:38:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=taoeffect.com; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=taoeffect.com; bh=7NNOabpyCViORsOFp +1AZUyKKow=; b=fqjoTZ1onRsNtcDY5XigFtkaOD0nGNJypyG+zFpMTSUjVbuwj wG4L2Adyp+bq4iMy9DhcA0gEu60acugNLAdZkLGunqudZ/tNmhB3B/jhuMllxQYu zd60uLI0qG2rXwfDPiJQOLH7UXMNvIqd3aDs7ivIC9+yuSQKDulkycU8HA= Received: from [192.168.42.64] (184-23-255-227.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net [184.23.255.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: contact@taoeffect.com) by homiemail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9E6B10AFB0; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_48577BF8-3593-4284-8308-909190857EDF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Tao Effect In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:38:02 -0700 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 518488681.78974-af09b9b6b299e0f06306f8a59ef62ec9 Message-Id: <530153E9-1F86-4B21-A43D-72325EF1F811@taoeffect.com> References: <31833011-7179-49D1-A07E-8FD9556C4534@taoeffect.com> <20170606232015.GA11830@erisian.com.au> <38DDC3A2-2727-477E-A6FF-7638842AAB03@taoeffect.com> <78F1D626-0D38-48FD-B2AF-378765182751@taoeffect.com> <52DF2F59-49DF-4F90-B2A6-AF903EACE6A0@taoeffect.com> To: Kekcoin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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, 07 Jun 2017 12:52:53 +0000 Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Anthony Towns Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable 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: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:38:04 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_48577BF8-3593-4284-8308-909190857EDF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_03CBB311-6268-4F78-9AFD-974CE559FEDC" --Apple-Mail=_03CBB311-6268-4F78-9AFD-974CE559FEDC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Please read my email more carefully; the replay threat would be moot = because there would be no alternative chain to replay the TX on, In order to *get to that point*, you need >51%. Not only that, but, if you started out with <51%, then you need >>51% in = order to *catch up* and replace the large number of blocks added to the = legacy chain in the mean time. So, since >51% is _required_ for BIP148 to succeed (and likely >>51%)... = you might as well do as SegWit did originally, or lower the threshold to = 80% or something (as BIP91 does). Without replay protection at the outset, BIP148, as far as I can tell, = isn't a threat to miners. -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also = sharing with the NSA. > On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Kekcoin > wrote: >=20 > Please read my email more carefully; the replay threat would be moot = because there would be no alternative chain to replay the TX on, as the = non-148 chain would have been reorganized into oblivion. >=20 >=20 > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >=20 >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 = untennable >> Local Time: June 7, 2017 3:26 AM >> UTC Time: June 7, 2017 12:26 AM >> From: contact@taoeffect.com >> To: Kekcoin > >> Anthony Towns >, = bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = = > >>=20 >> I don't know what you mean by "render the replay threat moot." >>=20 >> If you don't have replay protection, replay is always a threat. A = very serious one. >>=20 >> -- >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also = sharing with the NSA. >>=20 >>> On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Kekcoin > wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hmm, that's not the difference I was talking about. I was referring = to the fact that using "post-chainsplit coinbases from the non-148 = chain" to unilaterally (ie. can be done without action on the 148-chain) = taint coins is more secure in extreme-adverserial cases such as = secret-mining reorg attacks (as unfeasibly expensive they may be); the = only large-scale (>100 block) reorganization the non-148 chain faces = should be a resolution of the chainsplit and therefore render the replay = threat moot. >>>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_03CBB311-6268-4F78-9AFD-974CE559FEDC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Please read my email more carefully; the replay threat would = be moot because there would be no alternative chain to replay the TX = on,

In order to = *get to that point*, you need >51%.

Not only that, but, if you started out = with <51%, then you need >>51% in order to *catch up* and = replace the large number of blocks added to the legacy chain in the mean = time.

So, = since >51% is _required_ for BIP148 to succeed (and likely = >>51%)... you might as well do as SegWit did originally, or lower = the threshold to 80% or something (as BIP91 does).

Without replay = protection at the outset, BIP148, as far as I can tell, isn't a threat = to miners.

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not = comfortable also sharing with the NSA.

On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Kekcoin <kekcoin@protonmail.com> wrote:

Please= read my email more carefully; the replay threat would be moot because = there would be no alternative chain to replay the TX on, as the non-148 = chain would have been reorganized into oblivion.


Sent with ProtonMail Secure = Email.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and = BIP149 untennable
Local Time: June = 7, 2017 3:26 AM
UTC Time: June 7, = 2017 12:26 AM
From: contact@taoeffect.com
To: Kekcoin <kekcoin@protonmail.com>
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

I = don't know what you mean by "render the replay threat moot."

If you don't have replay protection, replay is always a = threat. A very serious one.

--
Please do not email me anything that you are = not comfortable also sharing with the = NSA.

On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Kekcoin <kekcoin@protonmail.com> wrote:

Hmm, = that's not the difference I was talking about. I was referring to the = fact that using "post-chainsplit coinbases from the non-148 chain" to = unilaterally (ie. can be done without action on the 148-chain) taint = coins is more secure in extreme-adverserial cases such as secret-mining = reorg attacks (as unfeasibly expensive they may be); the only = large-scale (>100 block) reorganization the non-148 chain faces = should be a resolution of the chainsplit and therefore render the replay = threat moot.



= --Apple-Mail=_03CBB311-6268-4F78-9AFD-974CE559FEDC-- --Apple-Mail=_48577BF8-3593-4284-8308-909190857EDF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJZN0rpAAoJEOxnICvpCVJHHpkP/AtA2Jr/c2FiGgT8M6vF1ADS 3n6WZKNiQ3DpbDcM9myjfwHswXwXGzEO+Ob5tUg7dUcFg39/UlSPIjIFguAlnWoJ ZN1x+Zfa5BVSMvbdpD07zXLml76ZYmSPZzRuol8cu6rfjgAmZx67go3aZiFXbvrW 7gb66cAmb8KFGXGtD7/N53L1D4dNIL39LxySz10QZfTNZtVKH2BzDz4E8InIePpu 9wXoIXoGl2FObdSd1qf9cKyTnU8KaUUqiNZ+MAok/FPpmVtfRWabBlFbTs7hxrNb y0PurlwyNLQJKEChJMnUKIZIXHVmNVVL8IiB81/IroWkEk3Fg3Gm9xs2GTk9PhmW Ki+9hp7vo1xaiUC3IOeG7+hOQNio5yrOjWS3PLJUhqo6qK/2YOClwWgwN0+z6GyJ 2ad3E7C/6PkpbkhDmeKXV2bvuJ8kNoc6O84/RS2kkRWDF3wSWmOLYH6v0+tHn4He dnWVVuP8BO1oeJlP4j4x08nda8N0TnM8Thv2xoDO+gEviPCqp5yQLPjpJGBqRSOV iw+eGPykk6ZYuMMCRDpWpnlQP38ytBC9PgpyWext2YGRyg53KxDtiVB+dtRYDJdy KJnyx5ffJGoFsA1puQ1S/huK/Zv4oppimbw+m2nW6rP8XXA8Ps93I4yoPgU+XulD yG64XxTcWT2bZon8Eu8m =memG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_48577BF8-3593-4284-8308-909190857EDF--