summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/f3/ba96190ea972aa1d3e4180e637497838564092
blob: c605a52d9a9d5e6fe1d38505e94e2ecb1f721850 (plain)
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
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 715C3106C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 07:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D327789
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 07:47:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [::1] (port=55558 helo=server47.web-hosting.com)
	by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.86)
	(envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>)
	id 1aDp06-002WsQ-J5; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 02:47:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 02:47:22 -0500
From: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151229053559.GA8657@muck>
References: <20151229053559.GA8657@muck>
Message-ID: <26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk>
X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
	jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Authenticated-Sender: server47.web-hosting.com: jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
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] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a
 simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash()
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: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 07:47:24 -0000

Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with 
private key lost?

I think we need to tell people not to do this. Related discussion:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011656.html


Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-29 00:35 寫到:
> Occured to me that this hasn't been mentioned before...
> 
> We can trivially fix the quadratic CHECK(MULTI)SIG execution time issue
> by soft-forking in a limitation on just SignatureHash() to only return
> true if the tx size is <100KB. (or whatever limit makes sense)
> 
> This fix has the advantage over schemes that limit all txs, or try to
> count sigops, of being trivial to implement, while still allowing for a
> future CHECKSIG2 soft-fork that properly fixes the quadratic hashing
> issue; >100KB txs would still be technically allowed, it's just that
> (for now) there'd be no way for them to spend coins that are
> cryptographically secured.
> 
> For example, if we had an issue with a major miner exploiting
> slow-to-propagate blocks(1) to harm their competitors, this simple fix
> could be deployed as a soft-fork in a matter of days, stopping the
> attack quickly.
> 
> 1) 
> www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03200.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev