馃搮 Original date posted:2015-09-19
馃摑 Original message:How them being expensive to generate make them less likely to be reorged?
Would an op_return output used as a nonce to make the hash of the
transaction contain some proof of work make the non-coinbase expirable
transaction more secure against reorgs?
I'm afraid your point is irrelevant.
On Sep 19, 2015 4:01 AM, "Luke Dashjr" <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:14:38 PM Jorge Tim贸n via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > As Mark points out this can be made safe by requiring that all the
> outputs
> > of a transaction that can expire have op_maturity/csv/rcltv of 100. That
> > makes them as reorg-safe as coinbase transactions.
>
> Not quite as safe. Remember that mined bitcoins have not only a 100-block
> maturity requirement, but *also* are expensive to generate.
> Mere OP_CHECKMATURITYVERIFY (aka rcltv) has no cost to use...
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150919/e2484b34/attachment.html>;
Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx鈥l2d8
2023-06-07 17:40:47
in reply to nevent1q鈥8t8
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 17:40:47Event JSON
{
"id": "17c272ae5973610eae697ecb600b6c4dca90ca7bc7fc733202a1b51487781b66",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686159647,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d245f3cd2427d9c30e488b3eacebf2ae42b122d633366f33db323c8696dd9375",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"58198f6ac607aab7b273ae75b28a884b7ad20e3565ea8ec6858dce1531e528a2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "馃搮 Original date posted:2015-09-19\n馃摑 Original message:How them being expensive to generate make them less likely to be reorged?\nWould an op_return output used as a nonce to make the hash of the\ntransaction contain some proof of work make the non-coinbase expirable\ntransaction more secure against reorgs?\nI'm afraid your point is irrelevant.\nOn Sep 19, 2015 4:01 AM, \"Luke Dashjr\" \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:14:38 PM Jorge Tim贸n via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e As Mark points out this can be made safe by requiring that all the\n\u003e outputs\n\u003e \u003e of a transaction that can expire have op_maturity/csv/rcltv of 100. That\n\u003e \u003e makes them as reorg-safe as coinbase transactions.\n\u003e\n\u003e Not quite as safe. Remember that mined bitcoins have not only a 100-block\n\u003e maturity requirement, but *also* are expensive to generate.\n\u003e Mere OP_CHECKMATURITYVERIFY (aka rcltv) has no cost to use...\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150919/e2484b34/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "66fff42c5530b86900622b82fe0cd820e154e917b10fb1493fdcb23e12b7ebfdecc70448b9b0b93459d690f632bd9ee6d13be4933a0aa33121b09a0b4151809c"
}