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
|
Return-Path: <belcher@riseup.net>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594D6C000E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:26:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E9E8318B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:26:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=riseup.net
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id BHV33QZgVEgZ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E16082EF0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GDfH272DHzDrhp
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Jun 2021 02:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
t=1624958767; bh=YqMuPusaPsiOcMA9xgMM4I1p4T0F4L86ge56JzO2WpM=;
h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From;
b=nAFgTwdUw39ob37V7BDcn07HumM7QgmG+0qqSm2K/NPmsYrH+1tD7nehvEePAMdF4
pj0YZdAVGYJq3IKE33Pc4p9t6HKLt/Y2FVUDNFTUZyNtNc0/HGk6CAb7AYA0S1WTTQ
wDdRbWSqkQeRCKcjNZL9XtrfwMAF3vZ9qxp7et4U=
X-Riseup-User-ID: F568D6EE55A31927D89D34D9A8D257E5EDF146641E03578FD9C69FF4880EA484
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GDfH22n0gz21lm
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Jun 2021 02:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <mailman.96927.1623334755.32591.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
<SJ0PR10MB4719291762199CECE5798AF1A1039@SJ0PR10MB4719.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
From: Chris Belcher <belcher@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <472cb1f4-33c8-33c8-9889-e0867f45d558@riseup.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:25:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR10MB4719291762199CECE5798AF1A1039@SJ0PR10MB4719.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Anti-fee-sniping protection with
nSequence in taproot transactions to improve privacy for off-chain
protocols
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:26:09 -0000
Good thinking. Your point also applies to CoinJoins (both equal-output
and payjoin), and to any transaction where multiple parties contribute
inputs.
The BIP should say "at least one of the inputs of the transaction" with
a suggestion that on-chain wallets just randomly pick an input.
On 28/06/2021 11:55, Ben Carman via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> If nSequence is set it should apply only to the first input of the
> transaction, if it has multiple inputs.
>
> This could have complications with DLCs and dual funded lightning. In both protocols the ordering of the inputs is not know until both parties have revealed all of their inputs, and during the reveal the nSequence is given. If we want DLCs and dual funded lightning to be compatible it would be better to have it define it as “at least one of the inputs of the transaction” instead of “it should apply only to the first input of the transaction”
>
> benthecarman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
