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
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3D313C2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:09:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com
[209.85.212.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D38CE8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:09:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so52279674wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=/t8HxxcTrGJYOfDW/qVAZrFs+4u7XNWRFZeAbFOUjdk=;
b=QeoQrcOukWEmR1n01OvTh0NVeD25fUR/3vVuXaQC21r9cbrf6HlyoJGhz6C2qDlXij
9n2IPLpWgrJM+GXR9ySztyle/XWxXjc0OZPF0fxrfxc+UCiCpjA4acbQfh42A4IHliix
ELWoDWecf8de8klatAA5KTojjplFYis+JnxY664et8ReHI8p9ZUrCL5NtMz6KFhHr+0i
Mc5u05bsHHilz9377d0HxrVrALJ/uEYAFsJpgBk6/U6plkcwFLpOSZCIPBwvvOo+9u2O
qSFyZIVFOadT/szYevA8SfgGew7ny/IkuuCt5IyH8NCmNcRS0bKeaoLvir1iJIpOW7mP
mgig==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkdSBIDbfdiCGBCbq6kTNvBVb4KL4SkjGHVKHzbixQdGObvKM0BdS+G6Q/Z9PcdP6Y/I/sh
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr10717174wjc.109.1442639363122;
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201509190201.01455.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <a50b82c156c805a284386d80a42cc926@xbt.hk>
<CAOG=w-vGqsAcw5vdY8SaGVe4Q6XX1J=GCsZftWgjES_N_5c2pA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp_afyqskEV8QmO43=-6R_2OJm36GVQxcQO_3ao2jC1gw@mail.gmail.com>
<201509190201.01455.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 07:09:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo0XBXL7SNwZmXJJKQO6-MmCtmwcFJat-bkp6_8Ue4Y3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_SBL 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] Fill-or-kill transaction
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: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:09:25 -0000
--089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How them being expensive to generate make them less likely to be reorged?
Would an op_return output used as a nonce to make the hash of the
transaction contain some proof of work make the non-coinbase expirable
transaction more secure against reorgs?
I'm afraid your point is irrelevant.
On Sep 19, 2015 4:01 AM, "Luke Dashjr" <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:14:38 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-d=
ev
> wrote:
> > As Mark points out this can be made safe by requiring that all the
> outputs
> > of a transaction that can expire have op_maturity/csv/rcltv of 100. Tha=
t
> > makes them as reorg-safe as coinbase transactions.
>
> Not quite as safe. Remember that mined bitcoins have not only a 100-block
> maturity requirement, but *also* are expensive to generate.
> Mere OP_CHECKMATURITYVERIFY (aka rcltv) has no cost to use...
>
> Luke
>
--089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">How them being expensive to generate make them less likely t=
o be reorged? Would an op_return output used as a nonce to make the hash of=
the transaction contain some proof of work make the non-coinbase expirable=
transaction more secure against reorgs?<br>
I'm afraid your point is irrelevant.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sep 19, 2015 4:01 AM, "Luke Dashjr"=
<<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>> wrote:<br t=
ype=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thursday, September 1=
7, 2015 7:14:38 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> As Mark points out this can be made safe by requiring that all the out=
puts<br>
> of a transaction that can expire have op_maturity/csv/rcltv of 100. Th=
at<br>
> makes them as reorg-safe as coinbase transactions.<br>
<br>
Not quite as safe. Remember that mined bitcoins have not only a 100-block<b=
r>
maturity requirement, but *also* are expensive to generate.<br>
Mere OP_CHECKMATURITYVERIFY (aka rcltv) has no cost to use...<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
</blockquote></div>
--089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8--
|
