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
|
Return-Path: <j@toom.im>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EA8EBFC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:40:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF71145
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:40:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.136] (1-64-179-042.static.netvigator.com
[1.64.179.42]) (authenticated bits=0)
by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id tB8NegM1003360
(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:40:45 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_A10A5A67-CCC9-41C7-9E52-86599668937F";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <5666FD8D.8050201@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:40:42 +0800
Message-Id: <2030FF3C-4F65-44E6-A9D5-9CD144179994@toom.im>
References: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
<20151208110752.GA31180@amethyst.visucore.com>
<CABm2gDpcek=u=Rpe68EMOq6M7Bji9J=s5VvoQWKRqaQDAP5kTw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1wga3Tandoe2mVGSKdHJytHoc9Ko7HRm2SvJXABEFk9w@mail.gmail.com>
<5666FD8D.8050201@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
To: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbWfa2BWLDr5TXb7fnIXvLtGjaCmIGJaMLKcewOaf482lRo8EVEHTSmC+ngjl//Rqk6wES1z9NOftG0X8cqam5V
X-Sonic-ID: C;bLOcGAWe5RGQEcgxU3XIUw== M;UJsuGgWe5RGQEcgxU3XIUw==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 08 Dec 2015 23:40:56 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_A10A5A67-CCC9-41C7-9E52-86599668937F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Agree. This data does not belong in the coinbase. That space is for =
miners to use, not devs.
I also think that a hard fork is better for SegWit, as it reduces the =
size of fraud proofs considerably, makes the whole design more elegant =
and less kludgey, and is safer for clients who do not upgrade in a =
timely fashion. I don't like the idea that SegWit would invalidate the =
security assumptions of non-upgraded clients (including SPV wallets). I =
think that for these clients, no data is better than invalid data. =
Better to force them to upgrade by cutting them off the network than to =
let them think they're validating transactions when they're not.
On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> If such a change is going to be deployed via a soft fork instead of a
> hard fork, then the coinbase is the worst place to put the segwitness
> merkle root.
>=20
> Instead, put it in the first output of the generation transaction as =
an
> OP_RETURN script.
>=20
> This is a better pattern because coinbase space is limited while =
output
> space is not. The next time there's a good reason to tie another =
merkle
> tree to a block, that proposal can be designated for the second output
> of the generation transaction.
--Apple-Mail=_A10A5A67-CCC9-41C7-9E52-86599668937F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWZ2p7AAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1EJcIAKuPmbrvCtRtfSfDEnWnYibv
1ldYAaUBe/AqxEpEHgTyf7/J/dZJVG8dLmEjxPCoUBZ0+UMYsKndZWmp8xQpW/4k
xhIbcaJWit5/HDZ2xlfqQ0+RFvJK0QRhkm1/J/NbJANzKflYnqs975gSUB6zSYvh
VPG1wxMosd2pkQDxqmzzBjG7d3aoqx27XKW4K0QiQin2h2IsPH2CanbyLOobHmMf
r+Lh8j1PlLgxpQPnDH0V4ZDEgw66bFvMP/OcY3j5Jz+ertWta+qmZiERNTzgYmVj
sGTcW2vOGYCeKFOuyeaTK+vazcIG6zSY0h237JeZQvDM5NGVUEPdXNrmanLgPfA=
=zGJQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_A10A5A67-CCC9-41C7-9E52-86599668937F--
|
