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
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
|
Return-Path: <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7687294D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:36:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f177.google.com (mail-ua0-f177.google.com
[209.85.217.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF794170
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:36:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f177.google.com with SMTP id n59so145709346uan.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=blockstream-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=Og1qbz7mxCMNLd1eoIfuNpdXSH/RnRuNnLP0Rz3cDio=;
b=w9K9j5DVcJjy6c6MOjqyiZhRHUlYXZuFLPPUD3slOvRo8C9hPzRlGwpeV3sOBO35/s
ajZ9WHa0eeGgey1D77T50/tdKbqI+bqLZFGeBX0VZeT8wCOn8oVJo/aJYE4z0/en7Ror
9+n4PwbGPmaSQioYUBdzOOJKtNhD/y0a/ii1/l5skAX/viATIrBRrxCmLAtlKYjfM/OR
Fpxjw2M+G+8O2go2wbYY4DDguM+nCNvrjCCbT99vj2d6pv6+DxnXCvgtz8vMUgJ9btsR
6PZPIFUjb6/29ytCkfI9pHzn2Egb6PE5Z6ADsxZnu9L6Opqezj5Jn0memCUZSj+AyKdC
Ykzg==
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:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=Og1qbz7mxCMNLd1eoIfuNpdXSH/RnRuNnLP0Rz3cDio=;
b=M/9RyN9jNTMc0Zov7MY6m64bcf/BykoNj+lflDURjfbMsc/LFITF3L14iUMuWpwTp0
aRmwYMP/20gWvJ2iWzY6CzcrpZYn8k4L9yz+GoiwN5SaFxbxmWCLaBhWESy2x8rbDSuK
IP5+drRJfJk02avgdtFAtTc9Oc1Cm3avcrWJCk5PGWDu0SCKldhpIu/afnL80N7CWmu5
MfOkMRUsGC8l52itt+v49M0OscUnWbBi1UlgrIB9X8Ymy6djCValQaLaPA2W+AZjR6i5
CQd/X9bXf37t75HZLEiHWt9EsMqrW0i7vrxB/Pd1++gM0ac0YI4LcQhVfHBQKpzD52bQ
whAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutOvivImvEIm2fedzuwgOqpljJLm4dtyxcZJ/VV4VYiE8avUTyG5yBsCuubwoFdkZ8JLwBa9IGYj23SawfX
X-Received: by 10.159.38.73 with SMTP id 67mr18056513uag.136.1471387005076;
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.83.45 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBi30SgHHXCyipbNpiMRHYWPCRYz6ejQYKrDg3MLJp39EQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1736097121.90204.1471369988809@privateemail.com>
<201608161937.20748.luke@dashjr.org>
<20160816194332.GA5888@fedora-21-dvm>
<CAMZUoKkAkGRFxpyGMxQMz76L7uW6fsQAYVxkrxi5MQCiBtNnqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBi30SgHHXCyipbNpiMRHYWPCRYz6ejQYKrDg3MLJp39EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:36:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKktS=Ku4kpD0bocR4X__ZpWXrkPkdOyXBaYxjq+mr9Pmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114950dcc3dc0b053a37fb37
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] New BIP: Dealing with OP_IF and OP_NOTIF
malleability in P2WSH
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 16 Aug 2016 22:36:46 -0000
--001a114950dcc3dc0b053a37fb37
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2016 00:23, "Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > If one's goal is to mess with an transaction to prevent it from being
> mined, it is more effective to just not relay the transaction rather than
> to mess with the witness. Given two transactions with the same txid and
> different witness data, miners and good nodes ought to mine/relay the
> version with the lower cost (smaller?) witness data.
>
> That implies that everyone will see both versions and be able to make that
> choice. Unfortunately, those two versions will be definition be in conflict
> with each other, and thus only one will end up paying a fee. We're can't
> relay two transactions for the price of one, or we'd expose the p2p network
> to a very cheap DDoS attack: just send increasingly small versions of the
> same transaction.
>
Can I already do something similar with replace by fee, or are there limits
on that?
--001a114950dcc3dc0b053a37fb37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">p=
ieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">=
<p dir=3D"ltr">On Aug 17, 2016 00:23, "Russell O'Connor via bitcoi=
n-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:</=
p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> If one's goal is to mess with an transaction to pre=
vent it from being mined, it is more effective to just not relay the transa=
ction rather than to mess with the witness.=C2=A0 Given two transactions wi=
th the same txid and different witness data, miners and good nodes ought to=
mine/relay the version with the lower cost (smaller?) witness data.</p>
</span><p dir=3D"ltr">That implies that everyone will see both versions and=
be able to make that choice. Unfortunately, those two versions will be def=
inition be in conflict with each other, and thus only one will end up payin=
g a fee. We're can't relay two transactions for the price of one, o=
r we'd expose the p2p network to a very cheap DDoS attack: just send in=
creasingly small versions of the same transaction.</p>
</blockquote><div>Can I already do something similar with replace by fee, o=
r are there limits on that? <br></div></div><br></div></div>
--001a114950dcc3dc0b053a37fb37--
|
