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
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E050486
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:58:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com (mail-pf0-f177.google.com
[209.85.192.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDEC523F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:58:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id c4so36856412pfb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:58:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent
:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=U06Ckw1C9NYfHJQdBXbQhpa+tZHJRYDZo3IoSCkBJKI=;
b=H/I4LWa2PxUUEoa1BtfOJVwP89o9FXPDzcD5Cx7FcJwhYjLOJXrYdzmiJbnSTDVLUh
w1Y27qAAFQV3pc/GrVec5sY27tTn1ZrWrNbn4bPF+/iz9Ym4TnqBFODNOijwt40zuRCE
Ec+Q+QYkepoYoJZoPYR1gALU9cAMMm5Ovsb5w30bI4LimkxibFiOPh1/W3gq37NIhGWE
U0GaciJ7Tj6fABmX88qrNtPBdu+rFRVmlVaCjI3vnJYSdwV65MLjC5RnHJkY2tpKOLR/
oyW6n/rJXOlQlBoTxB+AkTbYqY5SZ/UuIEiSoiUWOlQ6odm+KKFIj7YEfA09Ll706XBf
kWSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=U06Ckw1C9NYfHJQdBXbQhpa+tZHJRYDZo3IoSCkBJKI=;
b=CKDpW3gVM9MXQ8uk/IWNZD/qVqxUX62oopPRtW+dKaVqSQgzCSMd/iHFsBq++Hkbke
s60tkBfCO+sy6Neuo5R8QAT+RmracCaLOHpaGeIx+n8BC4kI+/oC5g2jD2/3B6CRlR5K
aC38Fb+r8oabOATK6tYMoDT+ZNr5cfvH7M+eV/hhk91Wgf6CRdhyVJQvWZ8zIi/4nF0n
atkOhTdV/kJApbcRUb7WRp2CEFtx6mxJn7hQ6tNP6CrF6tBci1HaLS9SKRMkY463XmT6
HluucPAg9O/3dluJnic45RNYdRBMSjS8ODdzXaaNnzenAHn6r0q+ULUbxov3AHRr0tLW
mwGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvceUGTGe4Cz93oodC5dsZC8JXrAwoz/ErjmNjExYT1+wO6AH+Bw2Q2BlIhdFdE57w==
X-Received: by 10.99.115.82 with SMTP id d18mr5726155pgn.56.1479376718334;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d?
([2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 65sm5469902pfn.12.2016.11.17.01.58.37
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:58:37 -0800 (PST)
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CABm2gDr2-MCiaFFjgUFP5Xc0fQfuqJ3=ZkrzjHqmOiwRZ50CBw@mail.gmail.com>
<d58ee114-00fd-23c8-9ca7-9a4b28c26f27@voskuil.org>
<CAE-z3OX5vak25UWcmBSe63OmoOVoGB394WmwyWwUcSxWeDOLhw@mail.gmail.com>
<e0e6679f-aec6-a579-667d-b5b58ea2360b@voskuil.org>
<20161117084405.GA12334@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <1165cdfe-b3e0-b1d6-76b7-30e32144601d@voskuil.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 01:58:38 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161117084405.GA12334@savin.petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="ojcTqCcLQecVSFjCIWew7dddjeT1jtl4g"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:22:42 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP30 and BIP34 interaction (was Re: [BIP
Proposal] Buried Deployments)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:58:39 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--ojcTqCcLQecVSFjCIWew7dddjeT1jtl4g
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 11/17/2016 12:44 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:43:08PM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev =
wrote:
>>> This means that all future transactions will have different txids...
>> rules do guarantee it.
>>
>> No, it means that the chance is small, there is a difference.
>>
>> If there is an address collision, someone may lose some money. If ther=
e
>> is a tx hash collision, and implementations handle this differently, i=
t
>> will produce a chain split. As such this is not something that a node
>> can just dismiss. If they do they are implementing a hard fork.
>=20
> If there is a tx hash collision it is almost certainly going to be beca=
use
> SHA256 has become weak..
Almost certainly is not certainly. Hash collisions happen because of chan=
ce.
BIP30 is quite explicit:
> "Fully-spent transactions are allowed to be duplicated in order not to
hinder pruning at some point in the future. Not allowing any transaction
to be duplicated would require evidence to be kept for each transaction
ever made."
BIP34 motivations:
> "2. Enforce block and transaction uniqueness, and assist unconnected
block validation."
But it only specifies making collisions harder, not impossible (i.e.
explicitly rejected by consensus).
Are you proposing that we draft a new BIP that allows us all to not have
to code for this? If we do so it will be impossible to guard against a
chain split due to pruning, but you seem to think that's unimportant.
e
--ojcTqCcLQecVSFjCIWew7dddjeT1jtl4g
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYLX9OAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOMUQH/1vWIIm4Huf+vVJFCHmqVgyG
8ct06mdrSQJ1UdMlneux3NnzeuvJm1SBLlC4yAPXPYFJQt4XpoMbDKZFLx2apaq5
0s/+hYBqVVvrY3+Boo4zMOFFiXDO0hw8v20ZRNf1/ndRDe+tEjhA66o1msZVcEB+
eYnCwhdG1+PkoGHDxqEgJ+CSJ3x6GLwQpUUrytfZIot73bd4hpT5BYvUe+e9/FgR
Od99Jiy15DesL5DRiONRJcOZfC81pgJ90FEDQsgaUfe6YptX8tGh0n+OEgeoPWnc
OboNcPiJXaMYYa46KQZjrMFk1qNZEeCOKwHVokNtqk8TOCzRQ5rEecX9z3yuR1E=
=m3Y/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ojcTqCcLQecVSFjCIWew7dddjeT1jtl4g--
|
