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
|
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 B68161020
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D586D132
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.190] (63.135.62.197.nwinternet.com [63.135.62.197]
(may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)
by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id tBTCxr3a028820
(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:59:54 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <777b112833eb55ae99af8cacaf0e3b5a@xbt.hk>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 05:00:45 -0800
Message-Id: <39BC49BA-FE1B-41F3-A423-DB1106A2A508@toom.im>
References: <20151229053559.GA8657@muck>
<26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk>
<77DAE310-204C-4275-A791-4047798FCBFE@toom.im>
<777b112833eb55ae99af8cacaf0e3b5a@xbt.hk>
To: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZOmeJaxMdXwVOhEgHzRCvYbCwArmRABKGIbYudZ43NQAZxMZWaFjLeBfvW/6J54kx3Y7q6RcXjdonpPypzoO09
X-Sonic-ID: C;bhzJDSyu5RG85P8vZz0oYQ== M;AK1BDiyu5RG85P8vZz0oYQ==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 3.8/5.0 by cerberusd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
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] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a
simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash()
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, 29 Dec 2015 12:59:59 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
I suggest we use short-circuit evaluation. If someone complains, we =
figure it out as we go, maybe depending on the nature of the complaint. =
If nobody complains, we get it done faster.
We're humans. We have the ability to respond to novel conditions without =
relying on predetermined rules and algorithms. I suggest we use that =
ability sometimes.
On Dec 29, 2015, at 4:55 AM, jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:
> What if someone complains? We can't even tell whether a complaint is =
legit or just trolling. That's why I think we need some general =
consensus rules which is not written in code, but as a social contract. =
Breaking those rules would be considered as a hardfork and is allowed =
only in exceptional situation.
>=20
> Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-12-29 07:42 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=
=B0:
>> That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a
>> specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't
>> need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to
>> perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork
>> becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their
>> secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed.
>> On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, =
with private key lost?
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841
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
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWgoP+AAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1NM8IAK7RYkK8PYi9wM0rsT824XR0
ALM/MA8ztHmaiBH3OJ13DCPQeZZI3eK2J6W3n3cENhPvphx/pYK1+pURNjT+Cnqs
OOEJeZYnrWUPB1f4eW4kQqCY3R+KkacDtMXsa4H5MMcrM9IQc/tNErFnmHyun7su
VIQnq1hUWzR+/V5B+7+qAAEvDLwVLSSg9HVMhJ/DQuVLoM9AwaK9STdYYgSYGpD3
IeX9KzUj3iSzzSGd05ZyS/8Ha+vG7R2RrfKZUKWvvrH56rqziV+Gn9RJCihda9Fj
/WGBc4pcT/i83j3qUW4ELobC8+un+hff5fYTl9tyhTh+QRDQTkaupo9wUnor5z0=
=Vf2s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841--
|
