From: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash()
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 02:47:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151229053559.GA8657@muck>
Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with
private key lost?
I think we need to tell people not to do this. Related discussion:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011656.html
Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-29 00:35 寫到:
> Occured to me that this hasn't been mentioned before...
>
> We can trivially fix the quadratic CHECK(MULTI)SIG execution time issue
> by soft-forking in a limitation on just SignatureHash() to only return
> true if the tx size is <100KB. (or whatever limit makes sense)
>
> This fix has the advantage over schemes that limit all txs, or try to
> count sigops, of being trivial to implement, while still allowing for a
> future CHECKSIG2 soft-fork that properly fixes the quadratic hashing
> issue; >100KB txs would still be technically allowed, it's just that
> (for now) there'd be no way for them to spend coins that are
> cryptographically secured.
>
> For example, if we had an issue with a major miner exploiting
> slow-to-propagate blocks(1) to harm their competitors, this simple fix
> could be deployed as a soft-fork in a matter of days, stopping the
> attack quickly.
>
> 1)
> www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03200.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-29 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-29 5:35 [bitcoin-dev] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash() Peter Todd
2015-12-29 7:47 ` jl2012 [this message]
2015-12-29 12:42 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-29 12:55 ` jl2012
2015-12-29 13:00 ` Jonathan Toomim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk \
--to=jl2012@xbt.hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox