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
|
Return-Path: <ethan.scruples@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DF6014F0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt1-f176.google.com (mail-qt1-f176.google.com
[209.85.160.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A54097E9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 03:05:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt1-f176.google.com with SMTP id v32so1548771qtc.10
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 20:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=oxn6nGKF2qL23JJ8THK8XgXvW/PrewV/kLXEruX+g8E=;
b=ahw7byXcL68UJqnn2gzRgjfI1Z/K0KYRK60JN9f9ahkz9sSSYTwEH91G5SkkdRp6T1
hZfkenn0E5PyqcCMdBgVisjrOaPjkIKAgbMVJp966R47EdnClotOpOvDaEDEiTVjEiSV
Jg4eUNJYJi1zMJp85MEOUprSP5sLYjaDJWeDE6cewmZ95t4H54udMIr5N41KpO4F1L0f
2/r43lUXtuBFRCsm5zdNuXGWUpvWvZYyIxWVq/8oZbcqXPMmTn02Qt3eHqVmhm0S0JUh
Uz5znN9UwCdU+tLAs2nG5RuIY6rk1wdcjSArqpjB2SlhmOLtrJTH4rwRLGkDdTJz3YI7
YL4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=oxn6nGKF2qL23JJ8THK8XgXvW/PrewV/kLXEruX+g8E=;
b=QV1g8YM6rm4Btnf2Uv1alPUO50a6u4DFJM8UZRifHgZe1ZPjd/jH7JycKTziCLf+29
oz7OI6rKK5bltLxOKx4WD6TO7rHuoeCYINgJhvtvynJ7gBd1x1dJMNl3zwlpaZ9p/Mqd
HLA//5plB/cPuJTdORNLH6KtSSNeIkVjfJKay6YcaYioBP5Fkt8SAfi4b3HkY0d3MaER
Yhb8vzT1TxVLtmWCl+WY39tqRhokv8ybi0MgIJC0OeVy1AXKgtjp7FWLfpqqaZLLWvc1
gJ/VnF7XzNzP9w3nzrciVGmxBqw8O60hh3PWZLqFGIGfLpO0MQf6Qw9rai21DbkymMYn
C0JQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhyWltKLBIDXZI70jCUgcvg9O7KqOJIzOiA3jbs2HJXH6ElM47
ZmoFsuZSQJ9+eCdxY/5hxf7GjhMGpcNVtKjvTaY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw7939um686w4AL2P1GjzzA1eAJ4ScQuuN2rHqn3vgKkvqMBs+kAqEL913MpmtSybtHRd7ALsRN0t40QNeX/4c=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:af74:: with SMTP id j49mr2778171qvc.129.1554347105832;
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 20:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPfvXf+JS6ZhXUieWVxiaNa4uhhWwafCk3odMKy5F_yi=XwngA@mail.gmail.com>
<816FFA03-B4D9-4ECE-AF15-85ACBFA4BA8F@jonasschnelli.ch>
<CACiOHGxxqm5Qn8J9u5oDE5Ek5smqB4E4iz4PJOZHpJO5kwP=-A@mail.gmail.com>
<201904040248.34162.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201904040248.34162.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Ethan Scruples <ethan.scruples@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:04:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CACiOHGy9q_W+w1n6q2hxvbrD_SfvbQ3AsNe+W+UBgEV8QF2C3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000019d1310585aba3ee"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham 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, 04 Apr 2019 05:05:32 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] assumeutxo and UTXO snapshots
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, 04 Apr 2019 03:05:07 -0000
--00000000000019d1310585aba3ee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> This is exactly the danger. UTXO snapshots are NOT an alternative to a
real IBD. There are HUGE security implications for this.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that people
do not appear to notice that there is no important security implication to
be found here.
If there are huge security implications for this, then I am keen to hear
them. In the scenario I have described, what advantage does Bob have over
Alice? What actionable information has Bob gained, and what is the action
he can take with it in hand? What value does Bob receive in return for the
electricity he has spent validating the previous blocks? I cannot find any,
but I am open to hearing the answer, and I think others would benefit from
knowing it as well.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:49 PM Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 April 2019 15:39:29 Ethan Scruples via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > If we can get mandatory UTXO commitments soft forked into Bitcoin, we get
> > the advantage of a non-growing IBD,
>
> No, we don't. This is exactly the danger. UTXO snapshots are NOT an
> alternative to a real IBD. There are HUGE security implications for this.
> Frankly, the danger that someone would do such a thing is itself a good
> reason not to ever add UTXO commitments.
>
> Luke
>
--00000000000019d1310585aba3ee
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">> This is exactly the danger. UTXO snapshots are NOT an=
=C2=A0alternative to a real IBD. There are HUGE security implications for t=
his.=C2=A0<br><div><br></div><div>This is a perfect example of what I am ta=
lking about when I say that people do not appear to notice that there is no=
important security implication to be found here.</div><div><br></div><div>=
If there are huge security implications for this, then I am keen to hear th=
em. In the scenario I have described, what advantage does Bob have over Ali=
ce? What actionable information has Bob gained, and what is the action he c=
an take with it in hand? What value does Bob receive in return for the elec=
tricity he has spent validating the previous blocks? I cannot find any, but=
I am open to hearing the answer, and I think others would benefit from kno=
wing it as well.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:49 PM Luke Dashjr <<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>> wro=
te:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px =
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Wednesday=
03 April 2019 15:39:29 Ethan Scruples via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> If we can get mandatory UTXO commitments soft forked into Bitcoin, we =
get<br>
> the advantage of a non-growing IBD,<br>
<br>
No, we don't. This is exactly the danger. UTXO snapshots are NOT an <br=
>
alternative to a real IBD. There are HUGE security implications for this. <=
br>
Frankly, the danger that someone would do such a thing is itself a good <br=
>
reason not to ever add UTXO commitments.<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
</blockquote></div>
--00000000000019d1310585aba3ee--
|
