From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08341491
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:24 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from forward2.bravehost.com (forward2.bravehost.com [65.39.211.66])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85AAF1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:51:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bravehost.com
Received: from [10.137.3.35]
	(this-is-a-tor-exit-node---keywebtor1.artikel5ev.de [87.118.116.90])
	(Authenticated sender: cannon@cannon-ciota.info)
	by forward2.bravehost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD14731D2;
	Sat, 25 Nov 2017 07:41:50 -0800 (PST)
To: adan@stampery.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Ad=c3=a1n_S=c3=a1nchez_de_Pedro_Crespo?=
	<adan@stampery.co>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAAQs3wuDPktHc6kiZXqTaatOheX4KP=TRgje0_-ED5h8iNs-MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F392E62C-00CF-4D91-BB6B-706F2A59C63B@xbt.hk>
	<CAAUFj10ZRQrtEzB_2wp-WS8Q-FGcSegpc_Z6kqvqnDLzNn=DrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAUFj11_Vh2K4MrmuBre5KaX6F16Jg3PYAsj6SSfzoYYRz_WyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAUFj1091C3xXL+2j1EovE2j_2kDYsjP_O4ZOKBaxmHuKN=1Lg@mail.gmail.com>
	<15502d41-61f2-9a17-a4cf-03cd20a87368@stampery.com>
From: CANNON <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>
Message-ID: <22ba8756-c661-8504-8de3-108626066df0@cannon-ciota.info>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:41:44 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Icedove/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <15502d41-61f2-9a17-a4cf-03cd20a87368@stampery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:33:13 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why SegWit Anyway?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:51:19 -0000

On 11/21/2017 01:16 PM, Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 2. SegWit signatures can be cheaper to verify (linear instead of
> quadratic). Prior to this, DoS attacks were possible by using forged
> transactions including signatures which could take several minutes to
> verify.

Where can I find more resources on this described DoS attack?
And how does SegWit prevent this if using SegWit transactions are not enforced?

Thanks