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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58335136E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:43:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148111.authsmtp.net (outmail148111.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.111])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2DF232
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:43:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t8SEhMPA076620;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:43:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t8SEhI5n041323
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:43:21 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:43:18 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Message-ID: <20150928144318.GA28939@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20150928132127.GA4829@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKTCZDNVJ-XEmsCAWGXUV3xOzVYmqMQYm0x+ihyYWQN0Gg@mail.gmail.com>
<20150928142953.GC21815@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKTUz2eVJOpixSebWiQ59ovoELNhsZWSsbLHXWqk2eCn0A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6TrnltStXW4iwmi0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKTUz2eVJOpixSebWiQ59ovoELNhsZWSsbLHXWqk2eCn0A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 4419ff36-65ef-11e5-b399-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAoUC1AEAgsB AmMbWlFeVF57W2I7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRRRi c0ZnV0dycwRFen0+ Y0ViWj5fWEVzIxB+
RFNSEDhQeGZhPWUC AkNRfh5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd ZgwRYklaTUsTGjkt DzojJWtyVWYlag4Q
CzsNCWI9OWsvH38T H2poMf9/
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:43:24 -0000
--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:33:23PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > SPV wallets can't detect hard-forks
>=20
>=20
> They don't have to - they pick the highest work chain. Any miner who hasn=
't
> upgraded makes blocks on the shorter chain that are then ignored (or
> rather, stored for future reorgs). After the fork point, there won't be a=
ny
> blocks in the main chain that violate the rules and end up being doomed to
> being orphaned, which is the underlying problem.
>=20
> And I think you know this already. There is no "flaw" in bitcoinj in this
> respect. It works exactly as it was designed to work.
Ok, so again, if that's your security criteria, what's the issue with
soft-forks? With soft-forks, the result of a SPV wallet following the
highest work chain is the same: eventually invalid blocks are reorged
out.
However, because soft-forks make it less likely that a long invalid
chain will be generated, an attacker sybil attacking your SPV wallet has
a much harder time tricking it into accepting a transaction. (they might
get one or two confirmations, rather than dozens)
What's the scenario where soft-forks are worse than hard-forks from a
SPV wallet's perspective?
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000368227ec1de9c27c14d23cb7be9e9f38c0082db79a87c49
--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=19IV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0--
|
