ð
Original date posted:2017-06-06
ð Original message:> Replay is a solved problem.
Point to this solved problem?
Your "solution" here is not a solution:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6f1urd/i_think_its_time_we_have_an_educated_discussion/diey21t/?context=3 <https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6f1urd/i_think_its_time_we_have_an_educated_discussion/diey21t/?context=3>;
> This is nothing but unfounded FUD. It is very simple to implement and
> guaranteed to work eventually. It may be time consuming, but that is the only
> truth here. The only risk is that of a long reorg, the same as double spend
> attacks.
Let's assume you invented a simple way to double-spend txns to self (which you haven't, fyi), then that is an issue in of itself as the point of bitcoin is to *prevent* double-spending to self.
There would need to be much more time for the community to discuss the implications of wallets have a "double-spend to self" button in them.
> What kind of "fungibility" does this FUD claim it destroys? Destroying cross-
> chain fungibility is the very *intent* of replay protection. And it does not
> destroy same-chain fungibility any more than any other miner spending.
Yes it does destroy same-chain fungibility, as discussed on twitter [1], you're making miner coins special on both chains.
> Lack of replay protection does not mean there is no coin.
It effectively does. If people want to proceed blindly, ignoring replay, they're welcome to read about the consequences [2].
[1] https://twitter.com/taoeffect/status/872226556571131905 <https://twitter.com/taoeffect/status/872226556571131905>;
[2] http://gist.github.com/taoeffect/c910ebb16d9f6d248e9f1f3c6e10b1b8 <http://gist.github.com/taoeffect/c910ebb16d9f6d248e9f1f3c6e10b1b8>;
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
> On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org <mailto:luke at dashjr.org>> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 06 June 2017 10:39:28 PM Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not
>> understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of
>> experience with them.
>
> Replay is a solved problem. It can be improved on and made simpler, but at
> this point, replay only occurs when the sender is either negligent or
> intending it.
>
>> Both of the coin-splitting techniques given so far by the proponents BIP148
>> are also untenable:
>>
>> - Double-spending to self with nLockTime txns is insanely complicated,
>> risky, not guaranteed to work, extremely time consuming, and would likely
>> result in a massive increase in backlogged transactions and increased
>> fees.
>
> This is nothing but unfounded FUD. It is very simple to implement and
> guaranteed to work eventually. It may be time consuming, but that is the only
> truth here. The only risk is that of a long reorg, the same as double spend
> attacks.
>
>> - Mixing with 148 coinbase txns destroys fungibility.
>
> What kind of "fungibility" does this FUD claim it destroys? Destroying cross-
> chain fungibility is the very *intent* of replay protection. And it does not
> destroy same-chain fungibility any more than any other miner spending.
>
>> Without a coin, there is no real threat from BIP148.
>
> Lack of replay protection does not mean there is no coin. Replay protection is
> equally a concern for the main (BIP148) chain and any legacy chains malicious
> miners might choose to split off. And none of this changes the fact that such
> miners will be unable to sell their legacycoins at Bitcoin market prices,
> because whether other transactions are replayed or not, *their* coins won't be
> valid on the main chain.
>
> Luke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170606/1e3823f1/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170606/1e3823f1/attachment.sig>;
Tao Effect [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r0âŠvdpg3
2023-06-07 18:02:25
in reply to nevent1qâŠ8kvl
Author Public Key
npub1r0g954grld59fuphzsypmuuhpdunq67f729afmp44h2mxvth2hts4vdpg3Published at
2023-06-07 18:02:25Event JSON
{
"id": "50cdb61905f0b0f442887085ddb4a2ba880c267d190555b9c3c07432357d8fa3",
"pubkey": "1bd05a5503fb6854f03714081df3970b79306bc9f28bd4ec35add5b3317755d7",
"created_at": 1686160945,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"753128ff5203f7385f15743651b80e2131d69a7ed154ad15484c1ff10dea468c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a72f51f0f7c6e2abf5f80726044f94fadbe1e8e3a44cccca8513ef65ca72f59e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "ð
Original date posted:2017-06-06\nð Original message:\u003e Replay is a solved problem.\n\nPoint to this solved problem?\n\nYour \"solution\" here is not a solution:\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6f1urd/i_think_its_time_we_have_an_educated_discussion/diey21t/?context=3 \u003chttps://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6f1urd/i_think_its_time_we_have_an_educated_discussion/diey21t/?context=3\u003e\n\n\u003e This is nothing but unfounded FUD. It is very simple to implement and\n\u003e guaranteed to work eventually. It may be time consuming, but that is the only\n\u003e truth here. The only risk is that of a long reorg, the same as double spend\n\u003e attacks.\n\nLet's assume you invented a simple way to double-spend txns to self (which you haven't, fyi), then that is an issue in of itself as the point of bitcoin is to *prevent* double-spending to self.\n\nThere would need to be much more time for the community to discuss the implications of wallets have a \"double-spend to self\" button in them.\n\n\u003e What kind of \"fungibility\" does this FUD claim it destroys? Destroying cross-\n\u003e chain fungibility is the very *intent* of replay protection. And it does not\n\u003e destroy same-chain fungibility any more than any other miner spending.\n\nYes it does destroy same-chain fungibility, as discussed on twitter [1], you're making miner coins special on both chains.\n\n\u003e Lack of replay protection does not mean there is no coin.\n\nIt effectively does. If people want to proceed blindly, ignoring replay, they're welcome to read about the consequences [2].\n\n[1] https://twitter.com/taoeffect/status/872226556571131905 \u003chttps://twitter.com/taoeffect/status/872226556571131905\u003e\n[2] http://gist.github.com/taoeffect/c910ebb16d9f6d248e9f1f3c6e10b1b8 \u003chttp://gist.github.com/taoeffect/c910ebb16d9f6d248e9f1f3c6e10b1b8\u003e\n\n--\nPlease do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\n\u003e On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org \u003cmailto:luke at dashjr.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Tuesday 06 June 2017 10:39:28 PM Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not\n\u003e\u003e understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of\n\u003e\u003e experience with them.\n\u003e \n\u003e Replay is a solved problem. It can be improved on and made simpler, but at\n\u003e this point, replay only occurs when the sender is either negligent or\n\u003e intending it.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Both of the coin-splitting techniques given so far by the proponents BIP148\n\u003e\u003e are also untenable:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e - Double-spending to self with nLockTime txns is insanely complicated,\n\u003e\u003e risky, not guaranteed to work, extremely time consuming, and would likely\n\u003e\u003e result in a massive increase in backlogged transactions and increased\n\u003e\u003e fees.\n\u003e \n\u003e This is nothing but unfounded FUD. It is very simple to implement and\n\u003e guaranteed to work eventually. It may be time consuming, but that is the only\n\u003e truth here. The only risk is that of a long reorg, the same as double spend\n\u003e attacks.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e - Mixing with 148 coinbase txns destroys fungibility.\n\u003e \n\u003e What kind of \"fungibility\" does this FUD claim it destroys? Destroying cross-\n\u003e chain fungibility is the very *intent* of replay protection. And it does not\n\u003e destroy same-chain fungibility any more than any other miner spending.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Without a coin, there is no real threat from BIP148.\n\u003e \n\u003e Lack of replay protection does not mean there is no coin. Replay protection is\n\u003e equally a concern for the main (BIP148) chain and any legacy chains malicious\n\u003e miners might choose to split off. And none of this changes the fact that such\n\u003e miners will be unable to sell their legacycoins at Bitcoin market prices,\n\u003e because whether other transactions are replayed or not, *their* coins won't be\n\u003e valid on the main chain.\n\u003e \n\u003e Luke\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170606/1e3823f1/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 801 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170606/1e3823f1/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "feb27d2d4b141fc4da734a614b37fcb3020eff0c11426230fc9aa9ecfac6ba94970529f55cc58c2ae3c9e11aaf9974ff34fd30b065be7124f3a4912b01018e20"
}