📅 Original date posted:2017-07-12
📝 Original message:You guys are both right that it is a different security model, with the
important distinction that it is opt-in. What I disagree with about what
you said is only that we are encouraging more risky behavior by adding
consensus rules via softfork. There are additional risks with
drivechains, but not because of how the new consensus rules would be
added (it would be the same risk as the P2SH softfork).
What's been explained to me a few times is that the
anyone-can-spend-ness of new transaction types that depend on softforked
consensus rules are exponentially less risky to the point that it is
infeasible to steal them as blocks are added to the chain that activated
the soft fork. I believe that Luke-Jr and Lopp are both very good at
explaining this and I know that Lopp has actually done some research as
to the cost of stealing these outputs. I can't remember the link but you
might find that with a google. One of them might even chime in and
explain that I'm totally wrong again!
Sorry for being a bit heated in my last response.
On 07/12/2017 02:55 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
> That's a fair point, I confused anyone-can-spend with anyone-can-pay [1].
>
> Isn't it different in the case of P2SH and SegWit, don't full nodes
> validate the script?
>
> In other words, miners don't have complete control over the coins,
> full nodes keep a check on them.
>
> At least that was my understanding, and if that's not the case then it
> doesn't make sense to me why Pieter would earlier in this thread
> object to Drivechain on the grounds that it's a different security model.
>
> - Greg
>
> [1] https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jl777/bitcoin-spinoff-fork-how-to-make-a-clean-fork-without-any-replay-attack-and-no-blockchain-visible-changes
>
>
> --
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing with the NSA.
>
>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:54 PM, CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Are we just pulling numbers out of thin air now? https://p2sh.info/
>> BIP16 for example is widely used. It would be difficult to find a
>> single wallet that doesn't support BIP16 I have no idea what you are
>> talking about.
>>
>>
>> On 07/12/2017 12:42 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> ...
>>> In the present situation, anyone-can-spend outputs are used by
>>> probably less than 0.1% of users, and most software doesn't even
>>> allow for the possibility.
>>>
>>> In Drivechain it's *encouraged-by-design*!
>>>
>>> - Greg
>>>
>>> --
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>> sharing with the NSA.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170712/c5024186/attachment.html>;
CryptAxe [ARCHIVE] /
npub12p…js309
2023-06-07 18:04:24
in reply to nevent1q…npc0
Author Public Key
npub12p7jzesdg8kxdg8rujr20znnd868fgugczkwh4cyxwa6gnxj5sxsnjs309Published at
2023-06-07 18:04:24Event JSON
{
"id": "68a0777ee1cc72f471b559daa92c60aa1f27ff8ab26747f7e4ee13b34a913c10",
"pubkey": "507d21660d41ec66a0e3e486a78a7369f474a388c0acebd70433bba44cd2a40d",
"created_at": 1686161064,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0dbbb3b4fffe9287047e58a8fa04c4b6c95589f2269ea5553f7cb2691feb3b03",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"73cfb41c9dd89cd9048ea191f8fb788be3727be1fdb91ee02ab8939ff99f1a3f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dfc3b86290d962b72921536f7e3b66c03742b85abc914447a90507cc27ff8a4b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-12\n📝 Original message:You guys are both right that it is a different security model, with the\nimportant distinction that it is opt-in. What I disagree with about what\nyou said is only that we are encouraging more risky behavior by adding\nconsensus rules via softfork. There are additional risks with\ndrivechains, but not because of how the new consensus rules would be\nadded (it would be the same risk as the P2SH softfork).\n\nWhat's been explained to me a few times is that the\nanyone-can-spend-ness of new transaction types that depend on softforked\nconsensus rules are exponentially less risky to the point that it is\ninfeasible to steal them as blocks are added to the chain that activated\nthe soft fork. I believe that Luke-Jr and Lopp are both very good at\nexplaining this and I know that Lopp has actually done some research as\nto the cost of stealing these outputs. I can't remember the link but you\nmight find that with a google. One of them might even chime in and\nexplain that I'm totally wrong again!\n\nSorry for being a bit heated in my last response.\n\n\nOn 07/12/2017 02:55 PM, Tao Effect wrote:\n\n\u003e That's a fair point, I confused anyone-can-spend with anyone-can-pay [1].\n\u003e\n\u003e Isn't it different in the case of P2SH and SegWit, don't full nodes\n\u003e validate the script?\n\u003e\n\u003e In other words, miners don't have complete control over the coins,\n\u003e full nodes keep a check on them.\n\u003e\n\u003e At least that was my understanding, and if that's not the case then it\n\u003e doesn't make sense to me why Pieter would earlier in this thread\n\u003e object to Drivechain on the grounds that it's a different security model.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Greg\n\u003e\n\u003e [1] https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jl777/bitcoin-spinoff-fork-how-to-make-a-clean-fork-without-any-replay-attack-and-no-blockchain-visible-changes\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also\n\u003e sharing with the NSA.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:54 PM, CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Are we just pulling numbers out of thin air now? https://p2sh.info/\n\u003e\u003e BIP16 for example is widely used. It would be difficult to find a\n\u003e\u003e single wallet that doesn't support BIP16 I have no idea what you are\n\u003e\u003e talking about.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On 07/12/2017 12:42 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ...\n\u003e\u003e\u003e In the present situation, anyone-can-spend outputs are used by\n\u003e\u003e\u003e probably less than 0.1% of users, and most software doesn't even\n\u003e\u003e\u003e allow for the possibility.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e In Drivechain it's *encouraged-by-design*!\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e - Greg\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also\n\u003e\u003e\u003e sharing with the NSA.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170712/c5024186/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "31720679c4ccb209284316e671ca53af28f1a4d46d0aad4b2237fbe3ce489b43cd13ef9582b3f1e11fed273a6c79885dd0e8bf7345a897f512be99ab71dfe9b5"
}