Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <24f2b447-a237-45eb-ef9f-1a62533fad5c@gmail.com>
	<83671224-f6ff-16a9-81c0-20ab578aec9d@gmail.com>
	<AAC86547-7904-4475-9966-138130019567@taoeffect.com>
	<6764b8af-bb4c-615d-5af5-462127bbbe36@gmail.com>
	<F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com>
	<117f6a96-6d90-778a-d87a-be72592e31c5@gmail.com>
	<42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3277f4ef-a250-d383-8b00-cb912eb19f8b@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 22:58:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F"
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain RfD -- Follow Up
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I will repeat that Drivechain can sometimes be confusing because it is
different things to different people.

Here is my attempt to break it down into different modes:

[DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and is
running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of the new
rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add drivechain
functionality and individual drivechains).
[DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using sidechai=
ns.
[DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but who
ever actually uses the sidechains.
[DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.

Greg is still conflating modes [DC#1] and [DC#3]. Specifically, he
equivocates on the team "steal", using it to mean two different things:
[a] spending an invalid transaction, and [b] a withdrawal that would not
match the report given by a sidechain node.

The two are quite different, see my comments below:


On 7/12/2017 9:15 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
>> FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
>> overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I think) to push
>> the waiting period to several weeks and the total ACK counting period
>> up to several months.
> What does that have to do with my question? The counting period, if I
> understood correctly, is something miners do, not full nodes.

Greg quoted a passage that contained an older parameter estimate of "a
few days", and I thought it would be helpful and informative if I
clarified that the parameter estimate had been updated to a new (more
secure) value.

In point of fact, he is wrong, because nodes do the counting. When
miners find a block, they can choose to move the counter up, down, or
not at all. But nodes do the counting.


> Also, if the document is old and/or outdated, do you happen to have a
> link to a more update-to-date version of the spec? It would be helpful
> for review.

As I stated above, the document is mostly accurate. There is no other
more up to date version.


>> Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will
>> just assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to someone
>> who still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].
>
> Right, for [DC#0] and [DC#1], but for [DC#2] an [DC#3] you marked it
> as "Yes" without substantiating why you did so.


Above, Greg omitted his original question. For reference, it was:

>  The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of anyone-can-pay is t=
he same as P2SH

The answer is that both DC and P2SH use transactions which are 'always
valid' to some group of people (un-upgraded users) but which are
sometimes invalid to new users. So the only difference would be for
[DC#0] vs other versions, but this difference is trivial as miners will
censor invalid txns.

It is your classic soft fork situation.


>> Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is
>> valid.
> And that is not how P2SH works.

Again, keep in mind that Greg continually conflates two different things:=

1. Whether the soft fork rules have been followed, and
2. Whether the WT^ submitted by a majority hashrate matches the one
calculated by sidechain nodes.

The first case is exactly equal to P2SH. Just as old nodes accept every
P2SH transaction, so too will [DC#0] users accept every WT^ transaction.

In the second case, it so happens that [DC#1], [DC#2], and [DC#3] would
also accept any WT^ *that followed the Drivechain rules*, even if they
did not like the outcome (because the outcome in question was
arbitrarily designated as a "theft" of funds -- again, see the second
case in the list above). In this way, it is exactly similar to P2SH
because nodes will accept *any* p2sh txn **that follows the p2sh
rules**, even if they don't "like" the specific script contained within
(for example, because it is a theft of "their" BitFinex funds, or a
donation to a political candidate they dislike, etc).


>> [DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding
>> what is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
>> with Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing list.
> How is that an answer to my question?

Greg is, of course, not entitled to an answer to irrelevant questions --
just as he would not be entitled to an answer if he asked for my
favorite color or my home address. And such answers would needlessly
consume the mailing list's scarce time.


> What does "[DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in
> understanding what is going on" mean?

It is clear to me that, if we are not clear on the basics first, we
cannot hope to tackle anything intermediate. We will come back to this
after clearing up soft fork part.


> In P2SH, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid P2SH transactions, peri=
od.

In DC, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid DC transactions, period.


> What exactly would [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes do when faced with an
> invalid WT^ transaction =E2=80=94 invalid in the sense that it contains=
 funds
> which miners are stealing?

The [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes would do exactly what the [DC#0] and [DC#1]
nodes do. This is what I mean by "every withdrawal is valid".


> Again, in P2SH miners cannot steal funds, because all full nodes have
> a fully automatic enforcement policy.

In DC, miners cannot steal funds, because all full nodes have a fully
automatic enforcement policy.

However, DC *allows* users to choose to place some of their BTC at the
relative mercy of the miners in creative ways, if they wish (as does
P2SH -- someone could write a script which donates funds to miners, and
then fund it... "paying" to that script). This is another example of
conflating [DC#1] and [DC#3].

Paul



>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com
>> <mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The confusion below stems from his conflation of several different ide=
as.
>>
>> I will try to explicitly clarify a distinction between several types
>> of user (or, "modes" of use if you prefer):
>>
>> [DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and is
>> running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of the new
>> rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add drivechain
>> functionality and individual drivechains).
>> [DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
>> Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using
>> sidechains.
>> [DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
>> decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but who
>> ever actually uses the sidechains.
>> [DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
>> nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/2017 6:43 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
>>>
>>> I am now looking closer again at step number 4 in the Drivechain
>>> specification [2]:
>>>
>>>     4. Everyone waits for a period of, say, 3 days. This gives
>>>     everyone an opportunity to make sure the same WT^ is in both the
>>>     Bitcoin coinbase and the Sidechain header. If they=E2=80=99re dif=
ferent,
>>>     everyone has plenty of time to contact each other, figure out
>>>     what is going on, and restart the process until its right.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that where our disagreement lies is in this point.
>>> The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of anyone-can-pay is
>>> the same as P2SH (and in later emails you reference SegWit as well).
>>> Is this really true?
>> FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
>> overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I think) to push
>> the waiting period to several weeks and the total ACK counting period
>> up to several months.
>>
>> [DC#0] Yes
>> [DC#1] Yes
>> [DC#2] Yes
>> [DC#3] Yes
>>
>> Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will
>> just assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to someone
>> who still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].
>>
>> (And this is the main advantage of DC over extension blocks).
>>
>>
>>> 2. Per the question in [1], it's my understanding that P2SH
>>> transactions contain all of the information within themselves for
>>> full nodes to act as a check on miners mishandling the
>>> anyone-can-spend nature of P2SH transactions. However, that does not
>>> seem to be the case with WT^ transactions.
>> [DC#0] They do.
>> [DC#1] They do.
>> [DC#2] They do.
>> [DC#3] They do.
>>
>> Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is
>> valid.
>>
>>
>>> In P2SH txns, there is no need for anyone to, as the Drivechain spec
>>> says, "to contact each other, figure out what is going on".
>>> Everything just automatically works.
>> There is no *need* to this in Drivechain, either, for [DC#0] or [DC#1]=
=2E
>>
>> [DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding
>> what is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
>> with Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing list.
>>
>>
>>> If the security of WT^ transactions could be brought up to actually
>>> be in line with the security of P2SH and SegWit transactions, then I
>>> would have far less to object to.
>> Somehow I doubt it.
>>
>>
>> Paul
>


--------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">I will repeat that Drivechain can
      sometimes be confusing because it is different things to different
      people.<br>
      <br>
      Here is my attempt to break it down into different modes:<br>
      <br>
      [DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and
      is running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of
      the new rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add
      drivechain functionality and individual drivechains).<br class="">
      [DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
      Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using
      sidechains.<br class="">
      [DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
      decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but
      who ever actually uses the sidechains.<br class="">
      [DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
      nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.<br>
      <br>
      Greg is still conflating modes [DC#1] and [DC#3]. Specifically, he
      equivocates on the team "steal", using it to mean two different
      things: [a] spending an invalid transaction, and [b] a withdrawal
      that would not match the report given by a sidechain node.<br>
      <br>
      The two are quite different, see my comments below:<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 7/12/2017 9:15 PM, Tao Effect wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">FYI that
            document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
            overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I
            think) to push the waiting period to several weeks and the
            total ACK counting period up to several months.</div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <div class="">What does that have to do with my question? The
        counting period, if I understood correctly, is something miners
        do, not full nodes.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Greg quoted a passage that contained an older parameter estimate of
    "a few days", and I thought it would be helpful and informative if I
    clarified that the parameter estimate had been updated to a new
    (more secure) value.<br>
    <br>
    In point of fact, he is wrong, because nodes do the counting. When
    miners find a block, they can choose to move the counter up, down,
    or not at all. But nodes do the counting.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">Also, if the document is old and/or outdated, do you
        happen to have a link to a more update-to-date version of the
        spec? It would be helpful for review.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    As I stated above, the document is mostly accurate. There is no
    other more up to date version.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">Because if a
            node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will just
            assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to
            someone who still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases
            [DC#0] and [#1].<br class="">
          </div>
        </blockquote>
        <br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">Right, for [DC#0] and [DC#1], but for [DC#2] an
        [DC#3] you marked it as "Yes" without substantiating why you did
        so.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    Above, Greg omitted his original question. For reference, it was:<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of anyone-can-pay is the same as P2SH</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    The answer is that both DC and P2SH use transactions which are
    'always valid' to some group of people (un-upgraded users) but which
    are sometimes invalid to new users. So the only difference would be
    for [DC#0] vs other versions, but this difference is trivial as
    miners will censor invalid txns.<br>
    <br>
    It is your classic soft fork situation.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">Again, from the
            perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is valid.</div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <div class="">And that is not how P2SH works.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Again, keep in mind that Greg continually conflates two different
    things:<br>
    1. Whether the soft fork rules have been followed, and<br>
    2. Whether the WT^ submitted by a majority hashrate matches the one
    calculated by sidechain nodes.<br>
    <br>
    The first case is exactly equal to P2SH. Just as old nodes accept
    every P2SH transaction, so too will [DC#0] users accept every WT^
    transaction.<br>
    <br>
    In the second case, it so happens that [DC#1], [DC#2], and [DC#3]
    would also accept any WT^ *that followed the Drivechain rules*, even
    if they did not like the outcome (because the outcome in question
    was arbitrarily designated as a "theft" of funds -- again, see the
    second case in the list above). In this way, it is exactly similar
    to P2SH because nodes will accept *any* p2sh txn **that follows the
    p2sh rules**, even if they don't "like" the specific script
    contained within (for example, because it is a theft of "their"
    BitFinex funds, or a donation to a political candidate they dislike,
    etc).<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">[DC#2] and
            [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding
            what is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever
            to do with Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing
            list.<br class="">
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <div class="">How is that an answer to my question?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Greg is, of course, not entitled to an answer to irrelevant
    questions -- just as he would not be entitled to an answer if he
    asked for my favorite color or my home address. And such answers
    would needlessly consume the mailing list's scarce time.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">What does "[DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an
        interest in understanding what is going on" mean?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    It is clear to me that, if we are not clear on the basics first, we
    cannot hope to tackle anything intermediate. We will come back to
    this after clearing up soft fork part.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">In P2SH, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid P2SH
        transactions, period.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    In DC, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid DC transactions,
    period.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">What exactly would [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes do when
        faced with an invalid WT^ transaction — invalid in the sense
        that it contains funds which miners are stealing?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    The [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes would do exactly what the [DC#0] and
    [DC#1] nodes do. This is what I mean by "every withdrawal is valid".<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">Again, in P2SH miners cannot steal funds, because
        all full nodes have a fully automatic enforcement policy.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    In DC, miners cannot steal funds, because all full nodes have a
    fully automatic enforcement policy.<br>
    <br>
    However, DC *allows* users to choose to place some of their BTC at
    the relative mercy of the miners in creative ways, if they wish (as
    does P2SH -- someone could write a script which donates funds to
    miners, and then fund it... "paying" to that script). This is
    another example of conflating [DC#1] and [DC#3].<br>
    <br>
    Paul<br>
    <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
      14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight:
      normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent:
      0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
      -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
      font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;
      font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal;
      line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class=""></span><br>
    <br>
    <br class="">
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <div>
          <blockquote type="cite" class="">
            <div class="">On Jul 12, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Paul Sztorc &lt;<a
                href="mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com" class=""
                moz-do-not-send="true">truthcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt;
              wrote:</div>
            <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
            <div class="">
              <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                charset=utf-8" class="">
              <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
                <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The confusion below stems
                  from his conflation of several different ideas.<br
                    class="">
                  <br class="">
                  I will try to explicitly clarify a distinction between
                  several types of user (or, "modes" of use if you
                  prefer):<br class="">
                  <br class="">
                  [DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin
                  software (and is running, say, 0.13). However, they
                  experience the effects of the new rules which miners
                  add (as per the soft fork[s] to add drivechain
                  functionality and individual drivechains).<br class="">
                  [DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest
                  version of the Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no
                  interest in running/using sidechains.<br class="">
                  [DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin
                  version, and decides to also become a full node of one
                  or more sidechains, but who ever actually uses the
                  sidechains.<br class="">
                  [DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs
                  sidechain full nodes, and actively moves money to and
                  from these.<br class="">
                  <br class="">
                  <br class="">
                  On 7/12/2017 6:43 PM, Tao Effect wrote:<br class="">
                </div>
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                    charset=utf-8" class="">
                  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                    charset=utf-8" class="">
                  <div class=""><br class="">
                  </div>
                  <div class="">I am now looking closer again at step
                    number 4 in the Drivechain specification [2]:</div>
                  <div class=""><br class="">
                  </div>
                  <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none;
                    padding: 0px;" class="">
                    <div class="">
                      <div class="">4. Everyone waits for a period of,
                        say, 3 days. This gives everyone an opportunity
                        to make sure the same WT^ is in both the Bitcoin
                        coinbase and the Sidechain header. If they’re
                        different, everyone has plenty of time to
                        contact each other, figure out what is going on,
                        and restart the process until its right.</div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <div class="">It seems to me that where our
                    disagreement lies is in this point.</div>
                  <div class="">The Drivechain spec seems to claim that
                    its use of anyone-can-pay is the same as P2SH (and
                    in later emails you reference SegWit as well). Is
                    this really true?</div>
                </blockquote>
                FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although
                it is still overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations
                allow us (I think) to push the waiting period to several
                weeks and the total ACK counting period up to several
                months.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                [DC#0] Yes<br class="">
                [DC#1] Yes<br class="">
                [DC#2] Yes<br class="">
                [DC#3] Yes<br class="">
                <br class="">
                Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's
                information, it will just assume every withdrawal is
                valid. This is comparable to someone who still hasn't
                upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].<br
                  class="">
                <br class="">
                (And this is the main advantage of DC over extension
                blocks).<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <div class="">2. Per the question in [1], it's my
                    understanding that P2SH transactions contain all of
                    the information within themselves for full nodes to
                    act as a check on miners mishandling the
                    anyone-can-spend nature of P2SH transactions.
                    However, that does not seem to be the case with WT^
                    transactions.</div>
                </blockquote>
                [DC#0] They do.<br class="">
                [DC#1] They do.<br class="">
                [DC#2] They do.<br class="">
                [DC#3] They do.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every
                withdrawal is valid.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <div class="">In P2SH txns, there is no need for
                    anyone to, as the Drivechain spec says, "to contact
                    each other, figure out what is going on". Everything
                    just automatically works.</div>
                </blockquote>
                There is no *need* to this in Drivechain, either, for
                [DC#0] or [DC#1].<br class="">
                <br class="">
                [DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in
                understanding what is going on, but that has absolutely
                nothing whatsoever to do with Bitcoin Core and so is
                off-topic for this mailing list.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <div class="">If the security of WT^ transactions
                    could be brought up to actually be in line with the
                    security of P2SH and SegWit transactions, then I
                    would have far less to object to.</div>
                </blockquote>
                Somehow I doubt it.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                Paul<br class="">
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br class="">
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F--