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
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F638B37
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:44:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com (sender163-mail.zoho.com
[74.201.84.163])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB3D923D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by
mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1479397492755223.42326607453913;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:44:52 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <34949746-c0c9-7f14-0e92-69d5a7d44b04@voskuil.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:40:05 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FA128F93-7E79-47FE-8270-225D07DD6FEF@xbt.hk>
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>
<CAE-z3OXfJa3Lewtrafm25bdfPa=eiarOAXBNbgc3ccTi7Qoe6A@mail.gmail.com>
<5ef23296-5909-a350-ab11-e717f8fffc41@voskuil.org>
<CAPWm=eW9X77+qQZGHkAOjN-k7KFwq06gKS6HOVOTE1+SmYBhWA@mail.gmail.com>
<34949746-c0c9-7f14-0e92-69d5a7d44b04@voskuil.org>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>,
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
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 15:44:59 -0000
> On 17 Nov 2016, at 20:22, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Given that hash collisions are unquestionably possible,=20
Everything you said after this point is irrelevant.
Having hash collision is **by definition** a consensus failure, or a =
hardfork. You could replace the already-on-chain tx with the collision =
and create 2 different versions of UTXOs (if the colliding tx is valid), =
or make some nodes to accept a fork with less PoW (if the colliding tx =
is invalid, or making the block invalid, such as being to big). To put =
it simply, the Bitcoin protocol is broken. So with no doubt, Bitcoin =
Core and any implementation of the Bitcoin protocol should assume SHA256 =
collision is unquestionably **impossible**. If some refuse to make such =
assumption, they should have introduced an alternative hash algorithm =
and somehow run it in parallel with SHA256 to prevent the consensus =
failure.
jl2012=
|
