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
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 756A9279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:14:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 986477C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:14:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id v186so37643844wmd.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:14:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=M/xZCO7ZJ+aF0WdYgaZDLxb6US5L1Zy7lwVM6FMV7l0=;
b=icLyu6IFLvXGKN5WcCVTvvT08IumahjMXqsvprStXf6jNEqlsQAkDFDQ1dGVpwx7jq
/Er8hK7rXcoY9uUydGGaR+A8RZZCE71syCf7fsoqWhB8en5+Q3RnEb3rxn9cEJoqEJvS
oRO2BDJzQJkga7y31hfmKA+Gs5Wc7P2xJv3g1L3ulSivCFlukIKCqBOJnpwhVglxUZ2/
IIDNINpM8OjuJ6jjEFVmmO8UEVIvUiZxAM0lM7/LTeLEuLNg+dJx/Kj0O1VUbK4Vv9FL
bGtGo44YpDeq2z15jUELzVIO1UG8Q8Vppl7hdhcseSx11Aejt++mlIcCRBY3WPPaFxVa
Juww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=M/xZCO7ZJ+aF0WdYgaZDLxb6US5L1Zy7lwVM6FMV7l0=;
b=A2tEHAlbca8ilhcNhjg9p4wisJuaUqJHVMXXg2tZH2Rrdr8AcUNFFxu+i2HaoCLIIw
WvUyyBnIysoQVUEWgXWk4CXuRTm5AQkbpMhtW8olRyzejaO458tkCQBhgs6/won9GUVI
4f5W98Cdq8ctjrZzW1k2HYyOPAfe0Sok1X7di9bXQD8RT6nun4Me0f4RCCV/L3zvqzyJ
Qikve17bqDExzUix2bn23/sFzZk75aKHsbBoYBSVmqLmm2tYPFWkby06H8QwsZEKmFeI
Ycrwu3hRrU4pHvV6tXWlo01qBKXRspf1/8K02PphMXlQq3RYV+0iX/cl+/SAnnTMkmdm
WovA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nt3EGZ8cqQIGeRHAgXk11VOLZHuIUfKjFhv1wEnbI0RSqmcdzFNxnIxf0g9WUKAubIkrcT9blAHnkXiA==
X-Received: by 10.28.54.2 with SMTP id d2mr3967191wma.45.1488060885225; Sat,
25 Feb 2017 14:14:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.142.68 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.80.142.68 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:14:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D36DB0BD-C805-4346-B425-77D5B29582E5@gmail.com>
References: <8F096BE1-D305-43D4-AF10-2CC48837B14F@gmail.com>
<20170225010122.GA10233@savin.petertodd.org>
<208F93FE-B7C8-46BE-8E00-52DBD0F43415@gmail.com>
<CAN6UTayzQRowtWhLKr8LyFuXjw3m+GjQGtHfkDj-Xu41Hym32w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEM=y+WkgSkc07ZsU6APAkcu37zVZ7dwSc=jAg1nho31S5ZyxQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20170225191201.GA15472@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAMZUoK=sq_sRoXuySca-VAGwA3AzeoZ5iNFSnKULbj+NtPjHFA@mail.gmail.com>
<20170225210406.GA16196@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAGLBAhdCb+QLWRm4FWkPvaM2sU24HuafdgNiS=wgnPTGzrW05w@mail.gmail.com>
<4FE38F6A-0560-4989-9C53-7F8C94EA4C76@gmail.com>
<20170225214018.GA16524@savin.petertodd.org>
<D36DB0BD-C805-4346-B425-77D5B29582E5@gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:14:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhZ1UqOLqz_PVjjrE8Cbte_Y160Gq7P7EWf6cRKjMcDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11436b6e77d9bd0549622cb7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SHA1 collisions make Git vulnerable to attakcs by
third-parties, not just repo maintainers
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: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:14:49 -0000
--001a11436b6e77d9bd0549622cb7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Feb 25, 2017 14:09, "Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Peter,
I really, really don=E2=80=99t want to get into it but segwit has many aspe=
cts that
are less appealing, not least of which being the amount of time it would
take to reach the critical mass.
Surely there's a number of alternative approaches which could be explored,
even if only to make a fair assessment of a best response?
Any alternative to move us away from RIPEMD160 would require:
* A drafting of a softfork proposal, implementation, testing, review.
* A new address format
* Miners accepting the new consensus rules
* Wallets adopting the new address format, both on the sender side and
receiver side (which requires new signatures).
I.e., exactly the same as segwit, for which most of these are already done.
And it would still only apply to wallets adopting it.
--=20
Pieter
--001a11436b6e77d9bd0549622cb7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On Feb 25, 2017 14:09, "Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev" &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">Hi Peter,<br>
<div class=3D"quoted-text"><br></div><div class=3D"quoted-text">
<br>
</div>I really, really don=E2=80=99t want to get into it but segwit has man=
y aspects that are less appealing, not least of which being the amount of t=
ime it would take to reach the critical mass.<br>
<br>
Surely there's a number of alternative approaches which could be explor=
ed, even if only to make a fair assessment of a best response?<br></blockqu=
ote></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Any alt=
ernative to move us away from RIPEMD160 would require:</div><div dir=3D"aut=
o">* A drafting of a softfork proposal, implementation, testing, review.</d=
iv><div dir=3D"auto">* A new address format</div><div dir=3D"auto">* Miners=
accepting the new consensus rules</div><div dir=3D"auto">* Wallets adoptin=
g the new address format, both on the sender side and receiver side (which =
requires new signatures).</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto=
">I.e., exactly the same as segwit, for which most of these are already don=
e. And it would still only apply to wallets adopting it.</div><div dir=3D"a=
uto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">--=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">Pieter</di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></di=
v></div></div>
--001a11436b6e77d9bd0549622cb7--
|
