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
|
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 25BEE957
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:53:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f170.google.com (mail-ua0-f170.google.com
[209.85.217.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F09A177
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:52:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f170.google.com with SMTP id n59so146188321uan.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:52:59 -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=n4kQbdtAWqhEnrUuq3eL6WuxuMSCl9jTXKe2EF8VaUg=;
b=FO2KlWMCF6DJ/JlZzYQE5vZYbGSlAhzIzSEnkpD5mSzLFmQjBVE6bVuDZsRZdG60Op
zmx2qEVg6GCBYc0x33Fvc/6WMXZQNqCjkEt2Mj1X5NUFdq3guJj2ZryL7r5BMNjxE3I7
vk4UH87DCEIThfUIDzqqTtvMomsYxyQA/z2kE15lift6k75nfLT8eLpFwjTltwsaJbnz
tu7XgqQgy43WcUPS2SaDbC7KVR7WF5x7E4AMccuVL0Dt9dvDSNkLNGv2be6PEn4r0v/Z
CZgDuxxthAmVVt12K68R0f9h+kD+kg6sDEtDzi7QlXUi2JPj43/fLWQZsIwQyhs72JiC
FBZA==
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=n4kQbdtAWqhEnrUuq3eL6WuxuMSCl9jTXKe2EF8VaUg=;
b=RAjuGPIOydDtWZpLzuisrG566Ehr/amaCiCcpk9E7MYfNANdq98C9MBmUO9MSdztQJ
Je66uF7xQ/1unsD+dChc60r6E5KIUkwVN2ep8b0RH9NtliPTHCXQaYpWJ8daUoyL0fQH
pqjY92lGorbhELtx97U9t097kuPY/8M1Xpqfw9O3AjEDUOQlr2jd+WsOO4ICz4C3Cm6O
KTbbGPKbPViQ7WEPyPaTxqj81C1jsUuFtaQwnIWUgVRRt2fWCse5pH4+b4xq9m7fFDOk
dx6Agkqydyb6IBOOUl1c2HTZEoD18MRxdINuB2NMs2GpgT/ZcwXCIjIyVW96pHj+KvQD
xgNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvt+Ux5XxSK+z9xdZK1W7nM5L8pUxpJKjscBrvHrLlBkZ7k6VKgm8zTYvn/E8JXIqxdT4sWl9lXfdxBrXvb
X-Received: by 10.31.137.8 with SMTP id l8mr11117193vkd.97.1471387978800; Tue,
16 Aug 2016 15:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.83.45 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhykn8BU1LAr1izH0z6nFuOv0PzWjuqq7YJX5r35LDa9Q@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>
<CAMZUoKktS=Ku4kpD0bocR4X__ZpWXrkPkdOyXBaYxjq+mr9Pmw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBhykn8BU1LAr1izH0z6nFuOv0PzWjuqq7YJX5r35LDa9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:52:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKnebdULkJXqM38i-SkzoD6ufcxdEhcBD1PG5C78qyjFOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11466018cdb41d053a383511
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 22:53:00 -0000
--001a11466018cdb41d053a383511
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I see.
But is it really necessary to soft fork over this issue? Why not just make
it a relay rule? Miners are already incentivized to modify transactions to
drop excess witness data and/or prioritize (versions of) transactions based
on their cost. If a miner wants to mine a block with excess witness data,
it is mostly their own loss.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2016 00:36, "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io> wrote:
>
> > Can I already do something similar with replace by fee, or are there
> limits on that?
>
> BIP125 and mempool eviction both require the replacing transaction to have
> higher fee, to compensate for the cost of relaying the replaced
> transaction(s).
>
> --
> Pieter
>
--001a11466018cdb41d053a383511
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I see.<br><br></div>But is it really necessary to sof=
t fork over this issue?=C2=A0 Why not just make it a relay rule?=C2=A0 Mine=
rs are already incentivized to modify transactions to drop excess witness d=
ata and/or prioritize (versions of) transactions based on their cost.=C2=A0=
If a miner wants to mine a block with excess witness data, it is mostly th=
eir own loss.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@=
gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span cl=
ass=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr">On Aug 17, 2016 00:36, "Russell O'Connor&q=
uot; <<a href=3D"mailto:roconnor@blockstream.io" target=3D"_blank">rocon=
nor@blockstream.io</a>> wrote:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> Can I already do something similar with replace by fee,=
or are there limits on that? </p>
</span><p dir=3D"ltr">BIP125 and mempool eviction both require the replacin=
g transaction to have higher fee, to compensate for the cost of relaying th=
e replaced transaction(s).</p><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888=
">
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter</p>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11466018cdb41d053a383511--
|
