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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Xa5YN-0002p8-GU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:17:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xa5YM-0005DR-Ll
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:17:59 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h18so268887igc.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 03 Oct 2014 09:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.28.13 with SMTP id x13mr15780831igg.8.1412353068875; Fri,
03 Oct 2014 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.168.5 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1987325.zKPNeYyO8K@crushinator>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
<B3CB4356-7F37-44D3-916B-7A591A1DBBEF@petertodd.org>
<CABbpET8_FMCcnh0dELnHsYmF+YP05Gz=nZ3SPkLZuqXYV3JUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1987325.zKPNeYyO8K@crushinator>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:17:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT5VSQywp_5_N2JboVT-LQDZ76UQXBvwZ4KfdQ06jAPig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Xa5YM-0005DR-Ll
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent
a txout from being spent until an expiration time
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:17:59 -0000
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> Is there a reason why we can't have the new opcode simply replace the top stack item with the block height of the txout being redeemed?
This would not be soft-forking compatible.
It also would be unsafe in that it would result in transactions which
once mined could not be restored in a reorg through no fault of the
participants, which makes the coins less fungible and differently safe
to accept. It risks creating weird pressures around immediate block
admission since a one additional block delay could forever censor such
a transaction (E.g. increases the power of single miners to censor or
steal). Avoiding this is a conscious decision in Bitcoin and also part
of the justification for the 100 block maturity of newly generated
coins.
It also would require violating the script/transaction/block layering
more substantially, complicating implementations, and making the
validity of a script no longer a deterministic pure function of the
transaction.
Avoiding these issues is a conscious design in OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
I would strenuously oppose a proposal which failed in any of these
respects.
> Then arbitrary logic could be implemented, including "output cannot be spent until a certain time" and also "output can ONLY be spent until a certain time," as well as complex logic with alternative key groups with differing time constraints.
You can already achieve the not spendable after logic with a
cancellation spend that moves the coin in the usual way. (Which
doesn't even require the participant be online, with the help of some
network service to queue unlocked transactions).
> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, as conceived, seems too limited, IMHO.
It is intentionally so, and yet it covers the intended use cases;
including ones with alternative key groups, they are just not
exclusive.
|
