Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAA3BFF0 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:42:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BBF3125 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.190] (63.135.62.197.nwinternet.com [63.135.62.197] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id tBTCfHsd025321 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:42:02 -0800 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1C7C5D61-8E11-454F-A895-8E72EEC5EAD1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Jonathan Toomim In-Reply-To: <26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:42:55 -0800 Message-Id: <77DAE310-204C-4275-A791-4047798FCBFE@toom.im> References: <20151229053559.GA8657@muck> <26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk> To: Bitcoin Dev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbked0gFJDfUuA/Ypy4l3drM2cSCXCz81g/U4+fUYK17CJ5qdo3jstgr8/ieDHiRdLo2D2kvrCwdxfpuSHSJxqn X-Sonic-ID: C;9vOqdCmu5RGFd8gxU3XIUw== M;VlUajymu5RGFd8gxU3XIUw== X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 3.8/5.0 by cerberusd 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] 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:42:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1C7C5D61-8E11-454F-A895-8E72EEC5EAD1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a specific = reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't need to worry = about it too much. If we announce the intention to perform such a soft = fork a couple of months before the soft fork becomes active, and if = nobody complains about it destroying their secret stash, then I think = that's fair enough and we could proceed. On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev = wrote: > Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with = private key lost? --Apple-Mail=_1C7C5D61-8E11-454F-A895-8E72EEC5EAD1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWgn/PAAoJEIEuMk4MG0P10z8H/2cBHMoV5iGQARhnYy7XX6vW EZKt6wcrFUd4UGoNP8pDwYUgcOQCCurkr+B+XPI6kre0BkfjZY95MGVVb8qDDNXD m4it9Up72rbWbj+zQ3PyHSRZm93SR50p6FV5ZqvihWk1dTPxMzNcELpPAfftcuH+ Yb8gbJGBn7iCYlGwTdiaez+vEmxDLqZZAtIHro0Z+1J70W6grXDhRCRGv08tDY0A g/QfsRezbYzEmkY7aoc7dDXsBgwtY1H/LH25wNkkdHJPa+MFGRe1zBBmtfNy3Sjj 4wpxI5VoyognL+7EOqhEw7o0kEBk+YUo8H4fUX0ArjAfZel62BSDXRFgzOI2xYU= =RmEC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1C7C5D61-8E11-454F-A895-8E72EEC5EAD1--