public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
To: Kekcoin <kekcoin@protonmail.com>
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:38:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <530153E9-1F86-4B21-A43D-72325EF1F811@taoeffect.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <lY1DxlDe2AacxKRcsB8DG2WvQK5wVnJdl46pE9Np9aGyTD560eDpJEvXZTNfKxSvulsGJOv3J4lrv14plchXfZh5JyYPLCNPATRMFUdu_h8=@protonmail.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2597 bytes --]

> Please read my email more carefully; the replay threat would be moot because there would be no alternative chain to replay the TX on,

In order to *get to that point*, you need >51%.

Not only that, but, if you started out with <51%, then you need >>51% in order to *catch up* and replace the large number of blocks added to the legacy chain in the mean time.

So, since >51% is _required_ for BIP148 to succeed (and likely >>51%)... you might as well do as SegWit did originally, or lower the threshold to 80% or something (as BIP91 does).

Without replay protection at the outset, BIP148, as far as I can tell, isn't a threat to miners.

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.

> On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Kekcoin <kekcoin@protonmail.com <mailto:kekcoin@protonmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Please read my email more carefully; the replay threat would be moot because there would be no alternative chain to replay the TX on, as the non-148 chain would have been reorganized into oblivion.
> 
> 
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> Secure Email.
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable
>> Local Time: June 7, 2017 3:26 AM
>> UTC Time: June 7, 2017 12:26 AM
>> From: contact@taoeffect.com <mailto:contact@taoeffect.com>
>> To: Kekcoin <kekcoin@protonmail.com <mailto:kekcoin@protonmail.com>>
>> Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au <mailto:aj@erisian.com.au>>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
>> 
>> I don't know what you mean by "render the replay threat moot."
>> 
>> If you don't have replay protection, replay is always a threat. A very serious one.
>> 
>> --
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
>> 
>>> On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Kekcoin <kekcoin@protonmail.com <mailto:kekcoin@protonmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hmm, that's not the difference I was talking about. I was referring to the fact that using "post-chainsplit coinbases from the non-148 chain" to unilaterally (ie. can be done without action on the 148-chain) taint coins is more secure in extreme-adverserial cases such as secret-mining reorg attacks (as unfeasibly expensive they may be); the only large-scale (>100 block) reorganization the non-148 chain faces should be a resolution of the chainsplit and therefore render the replay threat moot.
>>> 
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7260 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-07  0:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-06 22:39 [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:02 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-06-06 23:12   ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07 13:25   ` Nick Johnson
2017-06-07 16:27     ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07 17:35       ` Nick Johnson
2017-06-08  5:44         ` Conner Fromknecht
2017-06-08  6:38           ` Nick Johnson
2017-06-06 23:08 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-06-06 23:19   ` Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:20 ` Anthony Towns
2017-06-06 23:27   ` Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:31     ` Tao Effect
2017-06-06 23:59     ` Kekcoin
2017-06-07  0:04       ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07  0:19         ` Kekcoin
2017-06-07  0:26           ` Tao Effect
2017-06-07  0:29             ` Kekcoin
2017-06-07  0:38               ` Tao Effect [this message]
2017-06-07  0:46                 ` Kekcoin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-06-06 20:43 Tao Effect

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=530153E9-1F86-4B21-A43D-72325EF1F811@taoeffect.com \
    --to=contact@taoeffect.com \
    --cc=aj@erisian.com.au \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kekcoin@protonmail.com \
    /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