Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702EEE7F for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:52:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com (mail-ua0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EA9355 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:52:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x33so565054uac.2 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:52:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rosenbaum-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pSYmIAq07xaRTWocCUkohh/oc7nD9EZCF4hdpKjSYCA=; b=M9JYcyREMU18OLNaZ7JmdFplNWjBm6bAIyw9HOrV9k2WP0H9dn6c9mCc4fgHGUXEgk OyByyXkiIXt6Z2Tm2yEhqks3vrP3UhLEAOQ/ECgTU73mLlK7YLsEKGl5IhVA23d70X+m 8JTkMnI/AJanctj13jteQbhubJUX/sc9fWt56D66MQtN2LQ7jJ8+apWzIvBz4Bw4H5uf JeN7xj3qCqU3hsZp/zJpkl9cBlrIRtEl4xOIOhbAJq9+79hkc1GON4m4NTZrQBpZAymw yYrloQiZ8K8lZmhu3QShrXwVasd60hDf+q2VPVyL02M40OXnotjEQm5t73MS0AwlX+8Q VhGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pSYmIAq07xaRTWocCUkohh/oc7nD9EZCF4hdpKjSYCA=; b=GcslYQwuVxTLK+yBTc09SaK/s3+m18aZFNwmIoZOx4uY2drnM6Y4k0j+U+3pUDZY8v uFBdE+L762iieU+S8uc9aGNLOtyZnNiNMhztJKaJkZeH5j26beK8D7+fni0UUceFIrpC 0YuhkkF6I7EpcG82kEoLak1mqNqRaDIZGjxE/5Pxx6gCGZLMOaVLhQvHe60PVH6s8Gxr BVOiy8eJ54sl+i8WPDhDwhnKEgHsWmQS08nKwjh4MWrrJrNruihFF8XSr2Pk1Eiqppd3 hKJrwHlPrYu2VHhBQVn+1VlfXHL4/1on064N0PMIoLywiaYHeLJNrsuWAX/KL5cXvehf SpcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfFsMjDvVjLOzMhoGUJsU9grF/8PyxqmGNtXCZ9Y+aDzBTQyXyy Nvw5Vn3TiEJDXfFzLbsrL52VQEx6NoisFFOei2wJCvZeEm4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226Zx50JGanqjdmMEHJ7ny/18tzzLdh/tw3aG9ZUddl0d+5L6SWo4pFkB5ARGmU8ruujsXNR6Zsi/mbBMTSVkzw= X-Received: by 10.176.91.135 with SMTP id y7mr10461113uae.46.1516981930952; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.89.234 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) From: Kalle Rosenbaum Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:52:10 +0100 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:38:44 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fix or withdraw BIP120/121? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:52:13 -0000 Hi There is an inherent problem with BIP120, Proof of Payment: If there is a soft fork, a server that verifies PoPs will accept a PoP as valid without checking any of the new Bitcoin rules. For example, a server will be fooled by a segwit transaction, because the server doesn't have a witness to verify and consequently will accept any PoP with an empty scriptSig. Besides this problem, on-chain payments are not hot anymore and interest, or need, for PoP as a concept seems low. I have no good solution for the soft fork problem. Requiring all software that uses PoP to upgrade to a new PoP specification on each soft-fork is not good enough. Do you have any ideas on how to fix it? If there is no good solution to the soft-fork issue, I suggest that I withdraw BIP120 and BIP121. As for current implementations: I know that Mycelium implements BIP120, but I'm not sure if there is any other software, besides my own, implementing it. If you know of any, please let me know so I can discuss it with them. Regards, /Kalle