summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/cd/66feab7a6709ff9b5b041f7de383d6e0d1fb72
blob: 4102303235af4e4f9e82b7767695d0b4d8f7100f (plain)
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
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
Return-Path: <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FF4C8EE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:58:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f170.google.com (mail-qt0-f170.google.com
	[209.85.216.170])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BE8B10A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:58:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 32so27985184qtv.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=subject:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
	:in-reply-to:content-language;
	bh=ii+tHXL25YiJOI7COjJEfmDebGNMyDD2OKd+gq7XG1M=;
	b=uP6eO+CwEJ7I4IH1MdNQlIfxk1syN8NoIEsPcf0UaIpSf1hKNou/7lvere4kcSe6B9
	FM2upisXSPdv2DWNiaN716peXr8966DLo9rdiSflK2eAo/HMfer40Vnbnjok3YuaU4CC
	s581YgzDoWfnf1Q2hF4SF37b/hXnS9YgGwsLqQETLnrE09T3J9WH1fAMPNO2sBbiQNCU
	zvB+9dc0SzgfvMgPbXogvUbXhFbCex+IebcAbWA/t3SXQ1Owf/ysoiVaRvJs4NvS1urR
	kVXaSUp60u0T8LCSTLchIbZLnky0IOc9fyCYtMBGHoLfsQXFbegZnybnRIj3xj9hamAt
	0Pxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:subject:cc:references:from:message-id:date
	:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language;
	bh=ii+tHXL25YiJOI7COjJEfmDebGNMyDD2OKd+gq7XG1M=;
	b=PYvcpIpQRAoSZ5lUSQFimWhjxfncKgtumtuCWfiVJ+MONrvYyVsc615/2WR391nWef
	pNDwhcjZ4TVeG+ItGDzzIPYcMOmQ1IdZ1Zo5tkaHkB0lTeX8Y5PZxmnomXtUHe6z00kR
	dtgqDPDc0SLRgz+KULGo4+PkFqneo50NvOxshDj/X7CTwkw4hwmSbz98LbzkGmcKx+Rn
	0nSw+OSj3P18TmuRcKuAi1JbkUY+K1wEpgpkmTb4TgeTDySCYMToQ6ieMG0VDwRaAAkt
	UJWnV+BA5K94iH8VYsliGjhRbys4sJWstagtzMC7ndJRsgdjEheM19h9i5MHu4a7ibYG
	txgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111bf6IxWRzqxND4/onZqn7DT43F1xomlDkAy+d/IyZCzHrfW+YC
	efOwaPQr/CkjpQm4
X-Received: by 10.200.3.46 with SMTP id q46mr2278420qtg.3.1499914727188;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (ool-45726efb.dyn.optonline.net.
	[69.114.110.251]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
	x57sm3426078qtb.50.2017.07.12.19.58.45
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <24f2b447-a237-45eb-ef9f-1a62533fad5c@gmail.com>
	<83671224-f6ff-16a9-81c0-20ab578aec9d@gmail.com>
	<AAC86547-7904-4475-9966-138130019567@taoeffect.com>
	<6764b8af-bb4c-615d-5af5-462127bbbe36@gmail.com>
	<F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com>
	<117f6a96-6d90-778a-d87a-be72592e31c5@gmail.com>
	<42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3277f4ef-a250-d383-8b00-cb912eb19f8b@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 22:58:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:02:02 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain RfD -- Follow Up
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:58:50 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I will repeat that Drivechain can sometimes be confusing because it is
different things to different people.

Here is my attempt to break it down into different modes:

[DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and is
running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of the new
rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add drivechain
functionality and individual drivechains).
[DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using sidechai=
ns.
[DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but who
ever actually uses the sidechains.
[DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.

Greg is still conflating modes [DC#1] and [DC#3]. Specifically, he
equivocates on the team "steal", using it to mean two different things:
[a] spending an invalid transaction, and [b] a withdrawal that would not
match the report given by a sidechain node.

The two are quite different, see my comments below:


On 7/12/2017 9:15 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
>> FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
>> overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I think) to push
>> the waiting period to several weeks and the total ACK counting period
>> up to several months.
> What does that have to do with my question? The counting period, if I
> understood correctly, is something miners do, not full nodes.

Greg quoted a passage that contained an older parameter estimate of "a
few days", and I thought it would be helpful and informative if I
clarified that the parameter estimate had been updated to a new (more
secure) value.

In point of fact, he is wrong, because nodes do the counting. When
miners find a block, they can choose to move the counter up, down, or
not at all. But nodes do the counting.


> Also, if the document is old and/or outdated, do you happen to have a
> link to a more update-to-date version of the spec? It would be helpful
> for review.

As I stated above, the document is mostly accurate. There is no other
more up to date version.


>> Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will
>> just assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to someone
>> who still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].
>
> Right, for [DC#0] and [DC#1], but for [DC#2] an [DC#3] you marked it
> as "Yes" without substantiating why you did so.


Above, Greg omitted his original question. For reference, it was:

>  The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of anyone-can-pay is t=
he same as P2SH

The answer is that both DC and P2SH use transactions which are 'always
valid' to some group of people (un-upgraded users) but which are
sometimes invalid to new users. So the only difference would be for
[DC#0] vs other versions, but this difference is trivial as miners will
censor invalid txns.

It is your classic soft fork situation.


>> Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is
>> valid.
> And that is not how P2SH works.

Again, keep in mind that Greg continually conflates two different things:=

1. Whether the soft fork rules have been followed, and
2. Whether the WT^ submitted by a majority hashrate matches the one
calculated by sidechain nodes.

The first case is exactly equal to P2SH. Just as old nodes accept every
P2SH transaction, so too will [DC#0] users accept every WT^ transaction.

In the second case, it so happens that [DC#1], [DC#2], and [DC#3] would
also accept any WT^ *that followed the Drivechain rules*, even if they
did not like the outcome (because the outcome in question was
arbitrarily designated as a "theft" of funds -- again, see the second
case in the list above). In this way, it is exactly similar to P2SH
because nodes will accept *any* p2sh txn **that follows the p2sh
rules**, even if they don't "like" the specific script contained within
(for example, because it is a theft of "their" BitFinex funds, or a
donation to a political candidate they dislike, etc).


>> [DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding
>> what is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
>> with Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing list.
> How is that an answer to my question?

Greg is, of course, not entitled to an answer to irrelevant questions --
just as he would not be entitled to an answer if he asked for my
favorite color or my home address. And such answers would needlessly
consume the mailing list's scarce time.


> What does "[DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in
> understanding what is going on" mean?

It is clear to me that, if we are not clear on the basics first, we
cannot hope to tackle anything intermediate. We will come back to this
after clearing up soft fork part.


> In P2SH, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid P2SH transactions, peri=
od.

In DC, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid DC transactions, period.


> What exactly would [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes do when faced with an
> invalid WT^ transaction =E2=80=94 invalid in the sense that it contains=
 funds
> which miners are stealing?

The [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes would do exactly what the [DC#0] and [DC#1]
nodes do. This is what I mean by "every withdrawal is valid".


> Again, in P2SH miners cannot steal funds, because all full nodes have
> a fully automatic enforcement policy.

In DC, miners cannot steal funds, because all full nodes have a fully
automatic enforcement policy.

However, DC *allows* users to choose to place some of their BTC at the
relative mercy of the miners in creative ways, if they wish (as does
P2SH -- someone could write a script which donates funds to miners, and
then fund it... "paying" to that script). This is another example of
conflating [DC#1] and [DC#3].

Paul



>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com
>> <mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The confusion below stems from his conflation of several different ide=
as.
>>
>> I will try to explicitly clarify a distinction between several types
>> of user (or, "modes" of use if you prefer):
>>
>> [DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and is
>> running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of the new
>> rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add drivechain
>> functionality and individual drivechains).
>> [DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
>> Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using
>> sidechains.
>> [DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
>> decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but who
>> ever actually uses the sidechains.
>> [DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
>> nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/2017 6:43 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
>>>
>>> I am now looking closer again at step number 4 in the Drivechain
>>> specification [2]:
>>>
>>>     4. Everyone waits for a period of, say, 3 days. This gives
>>>     everyone an opportunity to make sure the same WT^ is in both the
>>>     Bitcoin coinbase and the Sidechain header. If they=E2=80=99re dif=
ferent,
>>>     everyone has plenty of time to contact each other, figure out
>>>     what is going on, and restart the process until its right.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that where our disagreement lies is in this point.
>>> The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of anyone-can-pay is
>>> the same as P2SH (and in later emails you reference SegWit as well).
>>> Is this really true?
>> FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
>> overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I think) to push
>> the waiting period to several weeks and the total ACK counting period
>> up to several months.
>>
>> [DC#0] Yes
>> [DC#1] Yes
>> [DC#2] Yes
>> [DC#3] Yes
>>
>> Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will
>> just assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to someone
>> who still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].
>>
>> (And this is the main advantage of DC over extension blocks).
>>
>>
>>> 2. Per the question in [1], it's my understanding that P2SH
>>> transactions contain all of the information within themselves for
>>> full nodes to act as a check on miners mishandling the
>>> anyone-can-spend nature of P2SH transactions. However, that does not
>>> seem to be the case with WT^ transactions.
>> [DC#0] They do.
>> [DC#1] They do.
>> [DC#2] They do.
>> [DC#3] They do.
>>
>> Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is
>> valid.
>>
>>
>>> In P2SH txns, there is no need for anyone to, as the Drivechain spec
>>> says, "to contact each other, figure out what is going on".
>>> Everything just automatically works.
>> There is no *need* to this in Drivechain, either, for [DC#0] or [DC#1]=
=2E
>>
>> [DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding
>> what is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
>> with Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing list.
>>
>>
>>> If the security of WT^ transactions could be brought up to actually
>>> be in line with the security of P2SH and SegWit transactions, then I
>>> would have far less to object to.
>> Somehow I doubt it.
>>
>>
>> Paul
>


--------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">I will repeat that Drivechain can
      sometimes be confusing because it is different things to different
      people.<br>
      <br>
      Here is my attempt to break it down into different modes:<br>
      <br>
      [DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and
      is running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of
      the new rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add
      drivechain functionality and individual drivechains).<br class="">
      [DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
      Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using
      sidechains.<br class="">
      [DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
      decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but
      who ever actually uses the sidechains.<br class="">
      [DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
      nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.<br>
      <br>
      Greg is still conflating modes [DC#1] and [DC#3]. Specifically, he
      equivocates on the team "steal", using it to mean two different
      things: [a] spending an invalid transaction, and [b] a withdrawal
      that would not match the report given by a sidechain node.<br>
      <br>
      The two are quite different, see my comments below:<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 7/12/2017 9:15 PM, Tao Effect wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">FYI that
            document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
            overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I
            think) to push the waiting period to several weeks and the
            total ACK counting period up to several months.</div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <div class="">What does that have to do with my question? The
        counting period, if I understood correctly, is something miners
        do, not full nodes.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Greg quoted a passage that contained an older parameter estimate of
    "a few days", and I thought it would be helpful and informative if I
    clarified that the parameter estimate had been updated to a new
    (more secure) value.<br>
    <br>
    In point of fact, he is wrong, because nodes do the counting. When
    miners find a block, they can choose to move the counter up, down,
    or not at all. But nodes do the counting.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">Also, if the document is old and/or outdated, do you
        happen to have a link to a more update-to-date version of the
        spec? It would be helpful for review.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    As I stated above, the document is mostly accurate. There is no
    other more up to date version.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">Because if a
            node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will just
            assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to
            someone who still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases
            [DC#0] and [#1].<br class="">
          </div>
        </blockquote>
        <br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">Right, for [DC#0] and [DC#1], but for [DC#2] an
        [DC#3] you marked it as "Yes" without substantiating why you did
        so.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    Above, Greg omitted his original question. For reference, it was:<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of anyone-can-pay is the same as P2SH</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    The answer is that both DC and P2SH use transactions which are
    'always valid' to some group of people (un-upgraded users) but which
    are sometimes invalid to new users. So the only difference would be
    for [DC#0] vs other versions, but this difference is trivial as
    miners will censor invalid txns.<br>
    <br>
    It is your classic soft fork situation.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">Again, from the
            perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is valid.</div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <div class="">And that is not how P2SH works.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Again, keep in mind that Greg continually conflates two different
    things:<br>
    1. Whether the soft fork rules have been followed, and<br>
    2. Whether the WT^ submitted by a majority hashrate matches the one
    calculated by sidechain nodes.<br>
    <br>
    The first case is exactly equal to P2SH. Just as old nodes accept
    every P2SH transaction, so too will [DC#0] users accept every WT^
    transaction.<br>
    <br>
    In the second case, it so happens that [DC#1], [DC#2], and [DC#3]
    would also accept any WT^ *that followed the Drivechain rules*, even
    if they did not like the outcome (because the outcome in question
    was arbitrarily designated as a "theft" of funds -- again, see the
    second case in the list above). In this way, it is exactly similar
    to P2SH because nodes will accept *any* p2sh txn **that follows the
    p2sh rules**, even if they don't "like" the specific script
    contained within (for example, because it is a theft of "their"
    BitFinex funds, or a donation to a political candidate they dislike,
    etc).<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">[DC#2] and
            [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding
            what is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever
            to do with Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing
            list.<br class="">
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <div class="">How is that an answer to my question?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Greg is, of course, not entitled to an answer to irrelevant
    questions -- just as he would not be entitled to an answer if he
    asked for my favorite color or my home address. And such answers
    would needlessly consume the mailing list's scarce time.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">What does "[DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an
        interest in understanding what is going on" mean?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    It is clear to me that, if we are not clear on the basics first, we
    cannot hope to tackle anything intermediate. We will come back to
    this after clearing up soft fork part.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">In P2SH, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid P2SH
        transactions, period.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    In DC, all upgraded nodes will reject invalid DC transactions,
    period.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">What exactly would [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes do when
        faced with an invalid WT^ transaction — invalid in the sense
        that it contains funds which miners are stealing?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    The [DC#2] and [DC#3] nodes would do exactly what the [DC#0] and
    [DC#1] nodes do. This is what I mean by "every withdrawal is valid".<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">Again, in P2SH miners cannot steal funds, because
        all full nodes have a fully automatic enforcement policy.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    In DC, miners cannot steal funds, because all full nodes have a
    fully automatic enforcement policy.<br>
    <br>
    However, DC *allows* users to choose to place some of their BTC at
    the relative mercy of the miners in creative ways, if they wish (as
    does P2SH -- someone could write a script which donates funds to
    miners, and then fund it... "paying" to that script). This is
    another example of conflating [DC#1] and [DC#3].<br>
    <br>
    Paul<br>
    <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
      14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight:
      normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent:
      0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
      -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
      font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;
      font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal;
      line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class=""></span><br>
    <br>
    <br class="">
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:42C03DFC-C358-4F8C-A088-735910CCC60E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">
        <div>
          <blockquote type="cite" class="">
            <div class="">On Jul 12, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Paul Sztorc &lt;<a
                href="mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com" class=""
                moz-do-not-send="true">truthcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt;
              wrote:</div>
            <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
            <div class="">
              <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                charset=utf-8" class="">
              <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
                <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The confusion below stems
                  from his conflation of several different ideas.<br
                    class="">
                  <br class="">
                  I will try to explicitly clarify a distinction between
                  several types of user (or, "modes" of use if you
                  prefer):<br class="">
                  <br class="">
                  [DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin
                  software (and is running, say, 0.13). However, they
                  experience the effects of the new rules which miners
                  add (as per the soft fork[s] to add drivechain
                  functionality and individual drivechains).<br class="">
                  [DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest
                  version of the Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no
                  interest in running/using sidechains.<br class="">
                  [DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin
                  version, and decides to also become a full node of one
                  or more sidechains, but who ever actually uses the
                  sidechains.<br class="">
                  [DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs
                  sidechain full nodes, and actively moves money to and
                  from these.<br class="">
                  <br class="">
                  <br class="">
                  On 7/12/2017 6:43 PM, Tao Effect wrote:<br class="">
                </div>
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                    charset=utf-8" class="">
                  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                    charset=utf-8" class="">
                  <div class=""><br class="">
                  </div>
                  <div class="">I am now looking closer again at step
                    number 4 in the Drivechain specification [2]:</div>
                  <div class=""><br class="">
                  </div>
                  <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none;
                    padding: 0px;" class="">
                    <div class="">
                      <div class="">4. Everyone waits for a period of,
                        say, 3 days. This gives everyone an opportunity
                        to make sure the same WT^ is in both the Bitcoin
                        coinbase and the Sidechain header. If they’re
                        different, everyone has plenty of time to
                        contact each other, figure out what is going on,
                        and restart the process until its right.</div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <div class="">It seems to me that where our
                    disagreement lies is in this point.</div>
                  <div class="">The Drivechain spec seems to claim that
                    its use of anyone-can-pay is the same as P2SH (and
                    in later emails you reference SegWit as well). Is
                    this really true?</div>
                </blockquote>
                FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although
                it is still overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations
                allow us (I think) to push the waiting period to several
                weeks and the total ACK counting period up to several
                months.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                [DC#0] Yes<br class="">
                [DC#1] Yes<br class="">
                [DC#2] Yes<br class="">
                [DC#3] Yes<br class="">
                <br class="">
                Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's
                information, it will just assume every withdrawal is
                valid. This is comparable to someone who still hasn't
                upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].<br
                  class="">
                <br class="">
                (And this is the main advantage of DC over extension
                blocks).<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <div class="">2. Per the question in [1], it's my
                    understanding that P2SH transactions contain all of
                    the information within themselves for full nodes to
                    act as a check on miners mishandling the
                    anyone-can-spend nature of P2SH transactions.
                    However, that does not seem to be the case with WT^
                    transactions.</div>
                </blockquote>
                [DC#0] They do.<br class="">
                [DC#1] They do.<br class="">
                [DC#2] They do.<br class="">
                [DC#3] They do.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every
                withdrawal is valid.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <div class="">In P2SH txns, there is no need for
                    anyone to, as the Drivechain spec says, "to contact
                    each other, figure out what is going on". Everything
                    just automatically works.</div>
                </blockquote>
                There is no *need* to this in Drivechain, either, for
                [DC#0] or [DC#1].<br class="">
                <br class="">
                [DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in
                understanding what is going on, but that has absolutely
                nothing whatsoever to do with Bitcoin Core and so is
                off-topic for this mailing list.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite"
                  cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com"
                  class="">
                  <div class="">If the security of WT^ transactions
                    could be brought up to actually be in line with the
                    security of P2SH and SegWit transactions, then I
                    would have far less to object to.</div>
                </blockquote>
                Somehow I doubt it.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <br class="">
                Paul<br class="">
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br class="">
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------45F5CB997752A967FDDBE53F--