MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201509190201.01455.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <a50b82c156c805a284386d80a42cc926@xbt.hk>
	<CAOG=w-vGqsAcw5vdY8SaGVe4Q6XX1J=GCsZftWgjES_N_5c2pA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDp_afyqskEV8QmO43=-6R_2OJm36GVQxcQO_3ao2jC1gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201509190201.01455.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 07:09:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo0XBXL7SNwZmXJJKQO6-MmCtmwcFJat-bkp6_8Ue4Y3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fill-or-kill transaction
Precedence: list

--089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How them being expensive to generate make them less likely to be reorged?
Would an op_return output used as a nonce to make the hash of the
transaction contain some proof of work make the non-coinbase expirable
transaction more secure against reorgs?
I'm afraid your point is irrelevant.
On Sep 19, 2015 4:01 AM, "Luke Dashjr" <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:14:38 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-d=
ev
> wrote:
> > As Mark points out this can be made safe by requiring that all the
> outputs
> > of a transaction that can expire have op_maturity/csv/rcltv of 100. Tha=
t
> > makes them as reorg-safe as coinbase transactions.
>
> Not quite as safe. Remember that mined bitcoins have not only a 100-block
> maturity requirement, but *also* are expensive to generate.
> Mere OP_CHECKMATURITYVERIFY (aka rcltv) has no cost to use...
>
> Luke
>

--089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">How them being expensive to generate make them less likely t=
o be reorged? Would an op_return output used as a nonce to make the hash of=
 the transaction contain some proof of work make the non-coinbase expirable=
 transaction more secure against reorgs?<br>
I&#39;m afraid your point is irrelevant.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sep 19, 2015 4:01 AM, &quot;Luke Dashjr&quot;=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br t=
ype=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thursday, September 1=
7, 2015 7:14:38 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; As Mark points out this can be made safe by requiring that all the out=
puts<br>
&gt; of a transaction that can expire have op_maturity/csv/rcltv of 100. Th=
at<br>
&gt; makes them as reorg-safe as coinbase transactions.<br>
<br>
Not quite as safe. Remember that mined bitcoins have not only a 100-block<b=
r>
maturity requirement, but *also* are expensive to generate.<br>
Mere OP_CHECKMATURITYVERIFY (aka rcltv) has no cost to use...<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
</blockquote></div>

--089e0141aa1ac74589052012a6d8--