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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9970DC000A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:25:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id 87BDA4ECB6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:25:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with UTF8SMTP id M4Xpu7YfaqLN
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:25:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 920B34ECB2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:25:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 8AB514E46CC;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:25:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com;
s=1615914063; t=1615915540;
bh=l/cTMfDHdELIu2BQmGT18qp6DpwNPA+uB60I7FS6Aps=;
h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
b=jOkLtYmdrM0XrpX9oLBoZt1jETv3dEwXbY+YrfCM8bhmsQFt1dqwfbjyrE0Apohkn
l3ijYRgTVT/I8eM6jZee3zSqXJUaIstff6HZ1SjHt+Pd5XlD4phUMou7+Gi0XRRohP
Q/jJhfaBQT1CLBaxGCH36yNkaDsrVgj1HTbjZVNv3AB253P2LbvbCa4EB885+2DWCZ
oDHHpvIh1/539SzO0HQy5oQPlY0nlX4xPU+0acLGbLqjofsAPk60CD85ZMvdRqILMp
r9wJyQe5g0U7lJSYXoSmxCCUsXREoGKbe1BdzBAz6Ro1U1BEm2DGyDf2si+Xs8/eFQ
SqC+CPDX4sDNg==
Message-ID: <98d63098-dabd-ba9f-38bc-1214631edb77@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:25:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Karl-Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>,
Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
References: <202103152148.15477.luke@dashjr.org>
<a88cd471-fdc9-de35-86cd-595b387249c8@mattcorallo.com>
<202103160344.26299.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <202103160344.26299.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] PSA: Taproot loss of quantum protections
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 16 Mar 2021 17:25:45 -0000
On 3/15/21 23:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> (To reiterate: I do not intend any of this as a NACK of Taproot.)
Frankly, then why parrot arguments you don't agree with in an already-tense discussion? I'm really not sure what there
is to gain by dredging up years-old since-settled debates except to cause yet more delay and frustration.
> On Monday 15 March 2021 22:05:45 Matt Corallo wrote:
>>> First, so long as we have hash-based addresses as a best practice, we can
>>> continue to shrink the percentage of bitcoins affected through social
>>> efforts discouraging address use. If the standard loses the hash, the
>>> situation cannot be improved, and will indeed only get worse.
>>
>> I truly wish this were the case, but we've been beating that drum for at
>> least nine years and still haven't solved it.
>
> I think we've made progress over those 9 years, don't you?
Some, sure, but not anywhere near the amount of progress we'd need to make to have an impact on QC security of the
overall system.
>> Except its not? One entity would be able to steal that entire block of
>> supply rather quickly (presumably over the course of a few days, at
>> maximum), instead of a slow process with significant upfront real-world
>> cost in the form of electricity.
>
> My understanding is that at least initial successes would likely be very slow.
> Hopefully we would have a permanent solution before it got too out of hand.
There is a lot of debate on this point in the original thread which discussed this several years ago. But even if it
were the case, it still doesn't make "let QC owners steal coins" somehow equivalent to mining. There are probably
several blocks of coins that can be stolen to the tune of much greater rewards than a block reward, but, more broadly,
what?! QC owners stealing coins from old outputs isn't somehow going to be seen as "OK", not to mention because many old
outputs do have owners with the keys, they aren't all forgotten or lost.
Matt
|
