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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Xc7D7-0003RW-Te
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:28:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xc7D7-0004iK-7u
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:28:25 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id h3so2363074igd.17
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 23:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.51.17.66 with SMTP id gc2mr5829303igd.40.1412836099863; Wed,
08 Oct 2014 23:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.168.5 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 23:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTHN4G1HO-7_0Fot943KK-GGOfK9gXDBqaKyyRngiXbuFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
<CABbpET8_FMCcnh0dELnHsYmF+YP05Gz=nZ3SPkLZuqXYV3JUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1987325.zKPNeYyO8K@crushinator>
<201410031750.27323.luke@dashjr.org>
<CANEZrP1eGi-AHgciQiKUuUB7WwqKsMOyTjCQAAO=RWEkPC2Uiw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NRNEQLqA2E=ysXsKw6hWS-H9X_AFYK4ckC4-_Bk=qbSA@mail.gmail.com>
<20141004003850.GA23202@muck>
<CANEZrP0_jDouDCLn9BvxUd7UYiZLbVsaGGkkxwjcOYxZryBDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0Q8g9KYRbAvCV=35x5Rb5HFnrNkrwwMZ=Mv-namMEPpg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2Xp7ene+KDw_L_YnNW=hDt9K-UigvZ6PLb3oUviOr_Tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJC2v+g-SWvqdaD2Fb7bb4DkWTtp+e4QNRGvCo1QtraFnQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5435FD3D.40409@gmail.com>
<CALqxMTHN4G1HO-7_0Fot943KK-GGOfK9gXDBqaKyyRngiXbuFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 06:28:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRmuyK_k4UU+3Lufaq7=j7wR_MXV1PKeb2HqRRa7VX=pQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
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: 1Xc7D7-0004iK-7u
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:28:26 -0000
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> I think you can do everything with the existing script level nlocktime
> in some kind of turing completeness sense (maybe); but there is a
> complexity cost that often you have to resort to extra dependent
> transaction(s) (and work-around malleability until that is fully
> fixed) just to get the effect.
Right, ... moreover, even with all the malleability fixes, they only
work if you refrain from using certain features (e.g. cannot do an
anyone-can-pay) and we cannot be completely sure all accidental
vectors for malleability are gone (we've been unable to construct a
proof that our strengthening of ECDSA turns it into a strong
signature, though it seems likely).
Having the locktime control in a scriptPubKey sidesteps all those
limitations and simplifies protocols (e.g. not requiring some three
step state machine and a bunch of risky validation code to be sure a
refund you receive is actually workable).
|
