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
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
|
Return-Path: <dustinpaystaxes@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A5A6A5E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:28:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm1-f45.google.com (mail-wm1-f45.google.com
[209.85.128.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5309C2D5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:28:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id n19so2239652wmi.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=mmjS3JNwSyQqnxh4KgW2dqnI5tjSioGT5L0lnTII3HE=;
b=oJ01Iu5GggBrvrzaHZ2YCw+QJcc4PzmgHW16jtVBv1DqB7BnxQGzIPOlD/zru1JM5s
Lx3mOiH8ST6sjwjfY7Wpy7shdtLGIKytHsw0B0Si5eIS5F5g7aQFVM3LVKDXEhYFAWDM
PjaYtNdcH0xYXK25kfgF0/1wAcLhnNv4B7z64XJh9bMz/uXEmhhTMhM0V1U4b1wI8g9/
c/38J0djMsa/3YfOarHlvLPU4WWY30zvPecXUq8ioJTZbCnJ6qpz01izt1aeJRQzOFJ2
E6SIwkvreOSM/Av+yrhAYCs21J39qZM0V7Sfvjc3wIe5SO0xBSlEDc7fWg/JxtIiEn0W
MkBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=mmjS3JNwSyQqnxh4KgW2dqnI5tjSioGT5L0lnTII3HE=;
b=adpkCW3TVBhfUFL3xKXdJRzUAFPsq2EeMCryre6WLjYBdbCxwMMCP370m4RofibVjh
wgEOls6HygtQM0wo/iOR6lcjT1Ccho0N6G9j+CCSigVdZS5sawTe/o+quHjbJ/nniYma
gUuwTlfQkyxxT0eTQ5l5FbXAI494QLjJphRgNxX8qnjXExMdcC+lTB55ZP6u8KV/JOMS
9ZVaGdcL8RGEj6oeqQp7gYHUKJGXlB4x/CrySHqR4twVD3VDM7bko8PiBAfVdMt8dIKw
iWIozqcxIE6ETT+zg9V5BsIZpRgKI+vjw4sGM71H46LSSpImQZQrLyCi3B5mrnBIx1jY
Ym/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVh9kfkRwGpoO3bteaFgkegapB4SdZyc1KnK7H01aJwqj7KBi50
ULRa+0sFAM/2lrK3PgvgWFE8UC8o+QN5SZYc21TcoA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzE0E75LooDeRiIb3aI+/KFeGLS0NpwOL/Q80mJ7xxEgZYb7+X8HE9fuziGe66vHkbb4c0ULYp06SgT1L+THNU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e910:: with SMTP id q16mr15825747wmc.30.1552242517473;
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <bf96c2fb-2e2e-a47f-e59f-87e56d83eca3@mattcorallo.com>
<CAMZUoK=1kgZLR1YZ+cJgzwmEOwrABYFs=2Ri=xGX=BCr+w=VQw@mail.gmail.com>
<6bb308f5-f478-d5ec-064f-e4972709f29c@mattcorallo.com>
<D2014BB7-1EFC-4604-ACF6-3C5AC74B6FC0@sprovoost.nl>
<D631175F-0704-4820-BE3C-110E63F9E3FF@mattcorallo.com>
<PS2P216MB0179EEBB4E8EBF86EB25EACD9D4F0@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <PS2P216MB0179EEBB4E8EBF86EB25EACD9D4F0@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Dustin Dettmer <dustinpaystaxes@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:28:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABLeJxS1sK8x-dgkOJ5f4=vjB4xja6EVeca-aHbeqOyS7SwWWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dbfe320583c19f01"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,LOTS_OF_MONEY,
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:43:37 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great
Consensus Cleanup
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: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:28:40 -0000
--000000000000dbfe320583c19f01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What about putting it in a deprecated state for some time. Adjust the
transaction weight so using the op code is more expensive (10x, 20x?) and
get the word out that it will be removed in the future.
You could even have nodes send a reject code with the message
=E2=80=9COP_CODESEPARATOR is depcrecated.=E2=80=9D
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 7:55 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Opinion: Lock in a blockheight to get rid of it 10 years in the future.
> Use it as press that Bitcoin is going to lose $1,000,000 if some mystery
> person does not put their transaction through by then, try for global
> presses. Use the opportunity to get rid of it while you are able. Once
> gazetted anything is public knowledge.
>
> Regards,
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org <
> bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Matt Corallo
> via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 9 March 2019 7:14 AM
> *To:* Sjors Provoost
> *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great
> Consensus Cleanup
>
> Aside from the complexity issues here, note that for a user to be
> adversely affect, they probably have to have pre-signed lock-timed
> transactions. Otherwise, in the crazy case that such a user exists, they
> should have no problem claiming the funds before activation of a soft-for=
k
> (and just switching to the swgwit equivalent, or some other equivalent
> scheme). Thus, adding additional restrictions like tx size limits will
> equally break txn.
>
> > On Mar 8, 2019, at 14:12, Sjors Provoost <sjors@sprovoost.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (1) It has been well documented again and again that there is desire t=
o
> remove OP_CODESEPARATOR, (2) it is well-documented OP_CODESEPARATOR in
> non-segwit scripts represents a rather significant vulnerability in Bitco=
in
> today, and (3) lots of effort has gone into attempting to find practical
> use-cases for OP_CODESEPARATOR's specific construction, with no successes
> as of yet. I strongly, strongly disagree that the highly-unlikely remote
> possibility that someone created something before which could be rendered
> unspendable is sufficient reason to not fix a vulnerability in Bitcoin
> today.
> >>
> >>> I suggest an alternative whereby the execution of OP_CODESEPARATOR
> increases the transactions weight suitably as to temper the vulnerability
> caused by it. Alternatively there could be some sort of limit (maybe 1) =
on
> the maximum number of OP_CODESEPARATORs allowed to be executed per script=
,
> but that would require an argument as to why exceeding that limit isn't
> reasonable.
> >>
> >> You could equally argue, however, that any such limit could render som=
e
> moderately-large transaction unspendable, so I'm somewhat skeptical of th=
is
> argument. Note that OP_CODESEPARATOR is non-standard, so getting them min=
ed
> is rather difficult in any case.
> >
> > Although I'm not a fan of extra complicity, just to explore these two
> ideas a bit further.
> >
> > What if such a transaction:
> >
> > 1. must have one input; and
> > 2. must be smaller than 400 vbytes; and
> > 3. must spend from a UTXO older than fork activation
> >
> > Adding such a contextual check seems rather painful, perhaps comparable
> to nLockTime. Anything more specific than the above, e.g. counting the
> number of OP_CODESEPARATOR calls, seems like guess work.
> >
> > Transaction weight currently doesn't consider OP codes, it only
> considers if bytes are part of the witness. Changing that to something mo=
re
> akin to Ethereums gas pricing sounds too complicated to even consider.
> >
> >
> > I would also like to believe that whoever went through the trouble of
> using OP_CODESEPARATOR reads this list.
> >
> > Sjors
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--000000000000dbfe320583c19f01
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div><div dir=3D"auto">What about putting it in a deprecated state for some=
time. Adjust the transaction weight so using the op code is more expensive=
(10x, 20x?) and get the word out that it will be removed in the future.</d=
iv></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">You could even have =
nodes send a reject code with the message =E2=80=9COP_CODESEPARATOR is depc=
recated.=E2=80=9D</div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 7:55 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY J=
AMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun=
dation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color=
:rgb(0,0,0)">
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color=
:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div id=3D"m_4635703046407541515signature">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color=
:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"color:black;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans=
-serif,serif,EmojiFont">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont">Opi=
nion: Lock in a blockheight to get rid of it 10 years in the future. Use it=
as press that Bitcoin is going to lose $1,000,000 if some mystery person d=
oes not put their transaction through
by then, try for global presses. Use the opportunity to get rid of it whil=
e you are able. Once gazetted anything is public knowledge.<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont"><br=
>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont">Reg=
ards,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont">LOR=
D HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div id=3D"m_4635703046407541515appendonsend"></div>
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id=3D"m_4635703046407541515divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"f=
ont-size:11pt" face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> =
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"=
_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a> <<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitco=
in-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> on behalf of Matt Corallo =
via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, 9 March 2019 7:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sjors Provoost<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Bitcoin Protocol Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Gr=
eat Consensus Cleanup</font>
<div>=C2=A0</div>
</div></div><div dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"m_4635703046407541515BodyFragment"><font size=3D"2"><span sty=
le=3D"font-size:11pt">
<div class=3D"m_4635703046407541515PlainText">Aside from the complexity iss=
ues here, note that for a user to be adversely affect, they probably have t=
o have pre-signed lock-timed transactions. Otherwise, in the crazy case tha=
t such a user exists, they should have no problem claiming
the funds before activation of a soft-fork (and just switching to the swgw=
it equivalent, or some other equivalent scheme). Thus, adding additional re=
strictions like tx size limits will equally break txn.<br>
<br>
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 14:12, Sjors Provoost <<a href=3D"mailto:sjors@s=
provoost.nl" target=3D"_blank">sjors@sprovoost.nl</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> (1) It has been well documented again and again that there is desi=
re to remove OP_CODESEPARATOR, (2) it is well-documented OP_CODESEPARATOR i=
n non-segwit scripts represents a rather significant vulnerability in Bitco=
in today, and (3) lots of effort has gone
into attempting to find practical use-cases for OP_CODESEPARATOR's spe=
cific construction, with no successes as of yet. I strongly, strongly disag=
ree that the highly-unlikely remote possibility that someone created someth=
ing before which could be rendered unspendable
is sufficient reason to not fix a vulnerability in Bitcoin today.<br>
>> <br>
>>> I suggest an alternative whereby the execution of OP_CODESEPAR=
ATOR increases the transactions weight suitably as to temper the vulnerabil=
ity caused by it.=C2=A0 Alternatively there could be some sort of limit (ma=
ybe 1) on the maximum number of OP_CODESEPARATORs
allowed to be executed per script, but that would require an argument as t=
o why exceeding that limit isn't reasonable.<br>
>> <br>
>> You could equally argue, however, that any such limit could render=
some moderately-large transaction unspendable, so I'm somewhat skeptic=
al of this argument. Note that OP_CODESEPARATOR is non-standard, so getting=
them mined is rather difficult in any case.<br>
> <br>
> Although I'm not a fan of extra complicity, just to explore these =
two ideas a bit further.<br>
> <br>
> What if such a transaction:<br>
> <br>
> 1. must have one input; and<br>
> 2. must be smaller than 400 vbytes; and<br>
> 3. must spend from a UTXO older than fork activation<br>
> <br>
> Adding such a contextual check seems rather painful, perhaps comparabl=
e to nLockTime. Anything more specific than the above, e.g. counting the nu=
mber of OP_CODESEPARATOR calls, seems like guess work.<br>
> <br>
> Transaction weight currently doesn't consider OP codes, it only co=
nsiders if bytes are part of the witness. Changing that to something more a=
kin to Ethereums gas pricing sounds too complicated to even consider.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I would also like to believe that whoever went through the trouble of =
using OP_CODESEPARATOR reads this list.<br>
> <br>
> Sjors<br>
> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi=
n-dev</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
--000000000000dbfe320583c19f01--
|