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 83CB3FB9
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:48:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149056.authsmtp.com (outmail149056.authsmtp.com
	[62.13.149.56])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA98191
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:48:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
	by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBVNmqKL033303
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:48:52 GMT
Received: from muck (d23-16-73-171.bchsia.telus.net [23.16.73.171])
	(authenticated bits=128)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBVNmmN5027899
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:48:51 GMT
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:48:48 -0800
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20151231234847.GB5112@muck>
References: <20151223013119.GA31113@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151223013119.GA31113@muck>
X-Server-Quench: 0b95c785-b019-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVJwpGK10IU0Fd
	P1hyKltILEZaQVBf Ri5dBBEKBAw1ADwr dVUTOkteY1U6ClZ1
	UkhIR0JQFw9sCRYE B1AcUQdzcRtBe2Bx Ykd9W3hcQ0U0MTQb
	PBMJa2gGZ2BoYWlR U0Rddk1UIgpPLRhN b00tVHIEfGQGM399
	T1ViMnVpZWwCcXsE Hw1QcAwEe0tZVg02 RgwJGjQpWEEIWRB7
	FBEpMFMTFVocPg0t MEcnVEkDPgRaAwtS V19EBC5VLkUAQCwv
	ABhBFUsfFjxbTk8k 
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 23.16.73.171/587
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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated witnesses and validationless mining
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:48:54 -0000


--yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 05:31:19PM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> # Summary

Updates from IRC discussion:

1) There was some debate about what exactly should be required from the
current block to calculate the previous block posession proof. For
instance, requiring the coinbase outputs potentially restricts some
mining setups; requiring a commitment to the current block's
(non-coinbase) transaction outputs restricts tx selection outsourcing
schemes.

However, it appears that we can allow the nonce to be picked
arbitrarily. Equally, if the nonce is arbitrary, then a future soft-fork
can be add commitments to current block contents. Thus the previous
block proof can be simple H(<nonce> + <prev-block-contents>)


2) Pieter Wuille brought up fraud proofs in relation to previous block
content proofs - specifically how the simplest H(<nonce> +
<prev-block-contents>) construction requires a large fraud proof to
prove incorrect. This followed a bunch of debate over what exactly fraud
proofs would be - a proof that some data is fraudulent, or a unmet
challenge that some data is correct?

Regardless, if the posession proof is structured as a merkle tree, then
fraud can be easily proven with a merkle path. In that model we'd take
the previous block contents and rehash it in its entirety with the
nonce. The fraud proof then becomes two merkle paths - one in the
original block with the original hash, and the second with the same
data, and same structure, but with the nonce mixed into the hashing
algorithm.


Todo: writeup the difference between the fraud proof model, and the
validity challenge model, to provide background to making this decision.


Incidentally, based the positive response to fixing this issue w/
segregated witnesses - my main objection to the plan - I've signed the
Bitcoin Core capacity increases statement:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-16826=
3005

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000006808135a221edd19be6b5b966c4621c41004d3d719d18b7

--yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=8toB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX--
From jtimon@jtimon.cc  Sat Jan  2 16:37:56 2016
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
X-Original-To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Delivered-To: bitcoin-dev@mail.linuxfoundation.org
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A2181195
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat,  2 Jan 2016 16:37:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com
	[209.85.213.43])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 170BA139
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat,  2 Jan 2016 16:37:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id f2so193970923vkb.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:37:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=H0kkkEjwcr3KRE6+xcQ1cvr84swrAHCBj5OylmM/kV4=;
	b=A48lpFuKc+iCqOMuiqjlNSXgail9XRDw1aCGlHUKhtscHaUNmxh96LHsVE8v90r5SJ
	AIhkaJeaXnXkemp6gn21ir4vm1s0YRI8wmVV5kbV7UaFkY309q2pgjb80lyMwImYprsG
	+cVoUdqkJ2jQ7p7wfA7sD9TB++mWSM5k1URfQlY2zZheKQ6Jw0eVxu3zVYz57eF4YSQl
	/RUzOgxiPj4D5rzImdDqi22guvHS9MID8L0mfsVGl4JW98O6xSLlQuRz3dhHn7OEghFd
	01R7zOAGxGaL7xEd93jmCPB4Z35htGG6p6VpbiMs0NZtu+kxaOilXwwtfbghiw+d8ZKK
	kVmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=H0kkkEjwcr3KRE6+xcQ1cvr84swrAHCBj5OylmM/kV4=;
	b=RsyFdMWvmV/ogpUr+sl7Hmff67lx/DRwtbjJ9bG6Au2Mg/KZL+b6MMJQp0g2ahUosd
	qtIn3mdA3AJAYkXKsLWwKLDJ0P1juWwOt9u2BvhQ8AMvB/mt55QqN3QhIcvhEuj7Vb3i
	Qg9n7T9XApZbx5r093IF4Dx9rQpgJyrWz+C1770wXbFWmtVVSGQz3o7975fCdn/GB0xQ
	zQtK6LgnCzNp2U51om2KJsKXHbtdn1dav0JAciIzG3gxHJrIyxPUrAd8yh5m6U87RAx8
	AnoG1JTkEv0SFtT5yyDJTidZibm9fO/wgNaNwAo8sDVHuVX8fZAYJ27mjCWMBFq62ZKw
	peag==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFMK7UYXXm+KwfdMYBpCQ2blZXieHOXtpDQ2LPSrwvF9bWFjtnUC2Irq2Jh34avf41O0n09sJBPBOFeAqZBcco5Wn7fQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.154.213 with SMTP id c204mr55632144vke.38.1451752675201; 
	Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 08:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 08:37:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151231234847.GB5112@muck>
References: <20151223013119.GA31113@muck>
	<20151231234847.GB5112@muck>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 17:37:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpSnX=_jXdHMyoTd-ktXT_U-6NAVDgGMj_R2kHGYykYyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f52c81ea1805285c825e
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,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] Segregated witnesses and validationless mining
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: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:37:56 -0000

--001a1140f52c81ea1805285c825e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Is there a link to the IRC discussion?
On Jan 1, 2016 12:49 AM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 05:31:19PM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> > # Summary
>
> Updates from IRC discussion:

Is there a link to the IRC discussion?

--001a1140f52c81ea1805285c825e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p dir="ltr">Is there a link to the IRC discussion?<br>
On Jan 1, 2016 12:49 AM, &quot;Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 05:31:19PM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; # Summary<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Updates from IRC discussion:</p>
<p dir="ltr">Is there a link to the IRC discussion?<br>
</p>

--001a1140f52c81ea1805285c825e--