From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A70AC004D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  2 Aug 2020 00:36:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B82C85F9A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  2 Aug 2020 00:36:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 1FqvrBEFk-fy
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  2 Aug 2020 00:36:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch
 [185.70.40.132])
 by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB0C85F98
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  2 Aug 2020 00:36:13 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 00:36:08 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail; t=1596328571;
 bh=0HxOG7AQO2k95VPQhlWm0CdG3cw7Ut44eNejk06mA2Y=;
 h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=T6jI9LBKqHQBjxmvhhPuS9613UccjRJiaAeAPsVppSFxYt5nge+NubyrZQabKkzTI
 2MNVzXHLkqOZf5tELba3uejc6fr7SiHPyQbhHWVHvIrE5MDeldiPNOid7QzKIglBkW
 UWAZ2jaTstorPI/poRa9HwVOmtsd5pNuLo7MjYA8=
To: Mike Brooks <m@ib.tc>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <1cxOISncF4dES_Ijm5FJUhwUAzBupnLPiv3qnU20as76zMMhVyggkg1hphq4ehuqEFK_H88TBbfI2pKbLWzzx7E6kOUXeC-yOcfrOkg3uAY=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALFqKjTDcsD4xpc-TryTRCNnCJivyqkU9dv0ff2emP5kxZF1bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALFqKjTDcsD4xpc-TryTRCNnCJivyqkU9dv0ff2emP5kxZF1bA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smaller Transactions with PubRef
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 00:36:15 -0000

Good morning Mike,

Hard NAK.

The responses to the original posting already pointed out important problem=
s with this:

* Encourages address reuse, hurting fungibility and privacy.
* Prevents pruning, since access to previous blocks must always be availabl=
e in order to validate.
* Optimized implementation requires creating yet another index to previous =
block data, increasing requirements on fullnodes.
* Requires SCRIPT to be re-evaluated on transactions arriving in  newblocks=
, to protect against reorgs of the chaintip, and in particular `OP_PUBREF` =
references to near the chaintip.

None of these issues have been addressed in your current proposal.
The proposal looks at clients only, without considering what validators hav=
e to implement in order to validate new blocks with this opcode.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj