📅 Original date posted:2017-06-09
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 9, 2017, at 05:50, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> Tomas wrote:
> > I don't completely understand the benefit of making the outpoints and
> > pubkey hashes (weakly) verifiable. These only serve as notifications and
> > therefore do not seem to introduce an attack vector.
>
> Not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?
>
I will rephrase. The BIP reads:
> Additionally, Full nodes can nearly undetectably lie by omission causing a denial of service which can
lead to undesirable failure modes in applications whose safety
critically relies on responding to certain
on-chain events.
I understand that the compact header chain is used to mitigate against
this, but I am unsure about the use
cases and trade-offs.
For a normal wallet, the only thing I can imagine an attacker could do
is pretending a transaction did not confirm
yet, causing nuisance.
An application critically depending on knowing what happens on-chain
surely is better off downloading
the TXIDs, providing PoW security? Gaining knowledge of incoming TXIDs
is nicely solved the payment protocol.
Are there enough use cases that critically depend on pub key hashes
being used on-chain, to make the compact header chain worth its costs?
Regards,
Tomas
Tomas [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rs…9evk4
2023-06-07 18:02:10
in reply to nevent1q…e6vs
Author Public Key
npub1rsp4w56r24w3zv4xy8zfgesep45qmf9rq6aghxfw3wr7yemqnnwsf9evk4Published at
2023-06-07 18:02:10Event JSON
{
"id": "9b56d2d2d8daa0c7f30ca1df66273d39cdff1283148f21e48b45c04cac911e04",
"pubkey": "1c03575343555d1132a621c49466190d680da4a306ba8b992e8b87e267609cdd",
"created_at": 1686160930,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"55a56c7ebba05dd9613a9ae00ae6d5bbfa4f7fd0155fa447a7d09d61ff658a4b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"57ad31e229d93a207594f3a0b89a4c1084c5713fede256c9df369a840fafc1c8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2df3fc2660459521b852c995d4fc1a93938389a5e085677d0ebb33ef92cc5476"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-09\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 9, 2017, at 05:50, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:\n\u003e Tomas wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I don't completely understand the benefit of making the outpoints and\n\u003e \u003e pubkey hashes (weakly) verifiable. These only serve as notifications and\n\u003e \u003e therefore do not seem to introduce an attack vector.\n\u003e \n\u003e Not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate? \n\u003e \n\nI will rephrase. The BIP reads:\n\n\u003e Additionally, Full nodes can nearly undetectably lie by omission causing a denial of service which can \nlead to undesirable failure modes in applications whose safety\ncritically relies on responding to certain\non-chain events.\n\nI understand that the compact header chain is used to mitigate against\nthis, but I am unsure about the use \ncases and trade-offs.\n\nFor a normal wallet, the only thing I can imagine an attacker could do\nis pretending a transaction did not confirm \nyet, causing nuisance. \n\nAn application critically depending on knowing what happens on-chain \nsurely is better off downloading \nthe TXIDs, providing PoW security? Gaining knowledge of incoming TXIDs\nis nicely solved the payment protocol.\n\nAre there enough use cases that critically depend on pub key hashes\nbeing used on-chain, to make the compact header chain worth its costs? \n\nRegards,\nTomas",
"sig": "66f34a53d1f1a01d19e11bf6767018bd765bcd133e77ebd4c3a3f00581c99f0310f571472826f19e18096a58309070e21e62dc3b74adf1395f9cd97faaa787d3"
}