From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B68161020 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:59:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D586D132 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.190] (63.135.62.197.nwinternet.com [63.135.62.197] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id tBTCxr3a028820 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:59:54 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Jonathan Toomim In-Reply-To: <777b112833eb55ae99af8cacaf0e3b5a@xbt.hk> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 05:00:45 -0800 Message-Id: <39BC49BA-FE1B-41F3-A423-DB1106A2A508@toom.im> References: <20151229053559.GA8657@muck> <26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk> <77DAE310-204C-4275-A791-4047798FCBFE@toom.im> <777b112833eb55ae99af8cacaf0e3b5a@xbt.hk> To: jl2012 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZOmeJaxMdXwVOhEgHzRCvYbCwArmRABKGIbYudZ43NQAZxMZWaFjLeBfvW/6J54kx3Y7q6RcXjdonpPypzoO09 X-Sonic-ID: C;bhzJDSyu5RG85P8vZz0oYQ== M;AK1BDiyu5RG85P8vZz0oYQ== X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 3.8/5.0 by cerberusd X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash() X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:59:59 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I suggest we use short-circuit evaluation. If someone complains, we = figure it out as we go, maybe depending on the nature of the complaint. = If nobody complains, we get it done faster. We're humans. We have the ability to respond to novel conditions without = relying on predetermined rules and algorithms. I suggest we use that = ability sometimes. On Dec 29, 2015, at 4:55 AM, jl2012 wrote: > What if someone complains? We can't even tell whether a complaint is = legit or just trolling. That's why I think we need some general = consensus rules which is not written in code, but as a social contract. = Breaking those rules would be considered as a hardfork and is allowed = only in exceptional situation. >=20 > Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-12-29 07:42 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88= =B0: >> That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a >> specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't >> need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to >> perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork >> becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their >> secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed. >> On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >>> Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, = with private key lost? >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >=20 --Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWgoP+AAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1NM8IAK7RYkK8PYi9wM0rsT824XR0 ALM/MA8ztHmaiBH3OJ13DCPQeZZI3eK2J6W3n3cENhPvphx/pYK1+pURNjT+Cnqs OOEJeZYnrWUPB1f4eW4kQqCY3R+KkacDtMXsa4H5MMcrM9IQc/tNErFnmHyun7su VIQnq1hUWzR+/V5B+7+qAAEvDLwVLSSg9HVMhJ/DQuVLoM9AwaK9STdYYgSYGpD3 IeX9KzUj3iSzzSGd05ZyS/8Ha+vG7R2RrfKZUKWvvrH56rqziV+Gn9RJCihda9Fj /WGBc4pcT/i83j3qUW4ELobC8+un+hff5fYTl9tyhTh+QRDQTkaupo9wUnor5z0= =Vf2s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_F01198B8-B27B-4E3E-B1EF-69314A036841--