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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2807D155E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:38:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [106.187.51.212])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E881225
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:38:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=navy.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.84 #2 (Debian))
id 1Zjrjk-0003fi-UI for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:38:42 +1000
Received: by navy.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:38:37 +1000
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:38:37 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20151007163837.GA28855@navy>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSEDGBd67m7i8zCgNRqtmQrZyZMj7a5TsYo41Dh=tdhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20151007150014.GA21849@navy>
<A763EBF7-4FA5-4FE4-9595-01317B264B0A@toom.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A763EBF7-4FA5-4FE4-9595-01317B264B0A@toom.im>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
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: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:38:46 -0000
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:46:08AM -0700, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > *But* a soft fork that only forbids transactions that would previously
> > not have been mined anyway should be the best of both worlds, ...
> I agree with pretty much everything you wrote except the above paragraph.
> An attacker can create a transaction that [...] A miner on the old version
> includes this transaction into a block, [...]
The point of that case is that there aren't such miners, so that exploit
doesn't apply.
In particular, AIUI, you'll have a hard job right now finding someone to
mine an OP_NOP2 transaction -- eligius might do it, but I don't think many
others will. And you also need your currently OP_NOP2-friendly miner not
to upgrade to an OP_CLTV-validating codebase, so I don't think eligius
will qualify there.
> Those of you who know Script better than me: would this be an example of a transaction that would be spendable with a valid sig XOR with (far future date OR old code)?
>
> OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubkeyhash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_PUSHDATA <locktime far in the future> OP_CLTV
If you want XOR, you'd need something more like:
OP_IF OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubkeyhash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY
OP_ELSE <locktime> OP_CLTV
OP_ENDIF
But that' still fail IsStandard and DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_NOPS checks
if you tried spending without a valid sig, so wouldn't be mined by
current nodes. (Not having a sig would also allow anyone to spend it to
themselves, so that might make it hard to use as a basis for double
spends anyway...)
Cheers,
aj
|
