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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>) id 1XEj3I-0008LQ-RQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:01:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.174; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XEj3H-00058x-44
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:01:36 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id vb8so965401obc.19
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.60.167 with SMTP id i7mr8109075oer.41.1407261689611; Tue,
05 Aug 2014 11:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.175.136 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 11:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgT2g9FgsVuKWLLxNqE_pp1DgdAc-edLL474UQ+eJQiXwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+iPb=HkxeVPF0SynxCPgUkq4msrdfayFrVNFjzg29rFwqXv1w@mail.gmail.com>
<3826251.5rGb1MfKOu@crushinator>
<CAAS2fgQPVwMzHBWmbRLBHZcm+YEbioqUHoL_a-SLr9yWDmguiw@mail.gmail.com>
<1515086.GQImTWpAiA@crushinator>
<CAAS2fgT2g9FgsVuKWLLxNqE_pp1DgdAc-edLL474UQ+eJQiXwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 21:01:29 +0300
Message-ID: <CAE28kUQwHwkovAVhp=OHfOw72n2NRqQgDWjWqNkp8RrJY9d_0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158bab41d8ca504ffe5a559
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(alex.mizrahi[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1XEj3H-00058x-44
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] deterministic transaction expiration
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:01:37 -0000
--089e0158bab41d8ca504ffe5a559
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> A distinction there is that they can only become invalid via a
> conflict=E2=80=94 replaced by another transaction authored by the prior
> signers. If no other transaction could be created (e.g. you're a
> multisigner and won't sign it again) then there is no such risk.
You need to check transaction's dependencies up to a certain depth to know
whether it is safe:
If one of inputs depends on transaction which is signed by parties with
unknown trustworthiness, then it isn't safe.
> It now introduces chance events ("act of god") into the mix where they
> they didn't exist before.
You need to check transaction's dependencies up to a certain depth to know
whether it is safe:
If one of inputs depends on transaction time-locked script (or other
unrecognized script), then it isn't safe.
Situation is identical, you might need several extra lines of code.
I think it would matter only if we had deterministic, reliable mempool and
reorganization behavior. But it's not something we can depend on.
--089e0158bab41d8ca504ffe5a559
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">A distinction there is that they can only become=
invalid via a<br>
conflict=E2=80=94 replaced by another transaction authored by the prior<br>
signers. If no other transaction could be created (e.g. you're a<br>
multisigner and won't sign it again) then there is no such risk.</block=
quote><div><br></div><div>You need to check transaction's dependencies =
up to a certain depth to know whether it is safe:</div><div>=C2=A0If one of=
inputs depends on transaction which is signed by parties with unknown trus=
tworthiness, then it isn't safe.</div>
<div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> =C2=A0It=C2=A0now intr=
oduces chance events ("act of god") into the mix where they<br>
they didn't exist before.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>You need to c=
heck transaction's dependencies up to a certain depth to know whether i=
t is safe:</div><div>=C2=A0 If one of inputs depends on transaction time-lo=
cked script (or other unrecognized script), then it isn't safe.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Situation is identical, you might need several extra li=
nes of code.</div><div><br></div><div>I think it would matter only if we ha=
d deterministic, reliable mempool and reorganization behavior. But it's=
not something we can depend on.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div>
--089e0158bab41d8ca504ffe5a559--
|
