1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1813F268
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com
[209.85.223.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70BBF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:53:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioc74 with SMTP id 74so110893187ioc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:53:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=9KnaovwLCSUabZ40TkeK8CbcCQTPVrN0IiIoWt/hTX4=;
b=uWIL6kW0YZXTlUV/tkP0wsvSJGkeKEyISt7MLW6ZKLZ3wkxvzI9dBZ5o28OGKK2As0
WCsQoty5OJjq48VO8yRJAAEq6T4ryEJrAcqK9Jn6YjJ5xTuCAAfSgHvqK/p0EgdiEROs
oSTDvtGoZfv9ZYg+yKnBq+V/e8bLIQUa6ikL2E1N17Jx4bSG3sbLMg7zg19xb6OpeSaN
aIsmshMy9/R4nKPJiK/q8LVpSoMG4uDFGbldw0M5MQqaNUEIYtaTLQrLLumG2Tm1Kal3
NugM+ogRgX3e4SypQcSVFOZl9hENhUAkzSOPQ9eNRsbhlD0hdzeuoJlYxaWvQn3tEDwS
m6Pg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.4.83 with SMTP id 80mr23632615ioe.150.1447451637261;
Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:53:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.192.199 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:53:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1581446.3ZPnhFUSFq@1337h4x0r>
References: <1581446.3ZPnhFUSFq@1337h4x0r>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:53:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQaUX92YUcO=WsC4rhkV3OsCXsSk6aJJ9m3V0vKMuC2FA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: xor@freenetproject.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:53:58 -0000
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:48 PM, xor via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
The first text is explaining nlocktime without BIP65 in order to
explain the reason for having BIP65.
|
