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
|
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 B4F851F50
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:22:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C8E78D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:22:46 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550604165; cv=none; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc;
b=fl1+SfAIesQ0+z6O/uBLDOjY+eVFMYvY5AvlxDyNNJhqiyZqn0whr1efAFQhI8/39qyqkYTnGhXy1y8ZPGbHW87AaCpif9JR8vaivEUZF4zrOp6VjRPHp8yCQvjtMahj7ZjiOZQIvtEOAyG+BmT0Q8Hl7NJgvMQUvGeSLs4AqA8=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com;
s=zohoarc; t=1550604165;
h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To:ARC-Authentication-Results;
bh=Vcla4mcLXGDK0sjTnyGwozR6mQntocEK1QcwjW1ZyTI=;
b=etwILmABn9wEuM2Q6SS99KJlVAb85giCWlL108LW9ZH4OBF8/7kYw4tkuIbP95SLeE1k+8Xs4jYKXLtx1XGavouyUclEe3ZTmgUxe8ZmeRVHGUAQD2wsXdJzJofnnMpmKv/pTalyBr4hKs9fLkKYbgkg/wmZg2NvSH9ZGVARBVY=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com; dkim=pass header.i=xbt.hk;
spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jl2012@xbt.hk;
dmarc=pass header.from=<jl2012@xbt.hk> header.from=<jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from [10.8.0.100] (n218103189223.netvigator.com [218.103.189.223])
by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1550604163295229.9847709374062;
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <201902191904.04412.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:22:07 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B58087BD-50F2-40DF-BDF0-8D1FDFDCDE03@xbt.hk>
References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk>
<201902191904.04412.luke@dashjr.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
X-ZohoMailClient: External
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:22:07 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging
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: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:22:47 -0000
This only depends on the contract between the payer and payee. If the =
contract says address reuse is unacceptable, it=E2=80=99s unacceptable. =
It has nothing to do with how the payee spends the coin. We can=E2=80=99t =
ban address reuse at protocol level (unless we never prune the chain), =
so address reuse could only be prevented at social level.
Using NOINPUT is also a very weak excuse: NOINPUT always commit to the =
value. If the payer reused an address but for different amount, the =
payee can=E2=80=99t claim the coin is lost due to previous NOINPUT use. =
A much stronger way is to publish the key after a coin is well =
confirmed.
> On 20 Feb 2019, at 3:04 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Thursday 13 December 2018 12:32:44 Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev =
wrote:
>> While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other =
proposals
>> require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of tagging?
>=20
> Yes, this seems to break the situation where a wallet wants to use =
NOINPUT for=20
> everything, including normal L1 payments. For example, in the scenario =
where=20
> address reuse will be rejected/ignored by the recipient =
unconditionally, and=20
> the payee is considered to have burned their bitcoins by attempting =
it.
>=20
> Luke
|
