public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:12:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7117CE7C-3C6F-4342-8A43-072605EB3D1E@taoeffect.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSU+UtbJSSAhf0-Sd0GH-RGnZmv+WHWtFV2zHFW2q6_yg@mail.gmail.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2588 bytes --]

Hey Greg,

It wasn't my intention to insult anyone (a bit defensive?).

Maybe this is yet another example of a recurring criticism of Core: that core doesn't community these issues very well to journalists / reports / media / community outside of this list.

Because outside of this list it's been all about those 148 coins, and almost zero mention of replay attacks.

> BIP149 is arguably something of another matter in particular because
> it has a time-frame that allows dealing with replay and other issues--
> and particularly because it has a time-frame that can allow for the
> avoidance of a meaningful fork at all.

Are there other, more reasonable / feasible ways of addressing replay attacks in Bitcoin / BIP149 scenario?

Cheers,
Greg

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

> On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org <mailto:greg@xiph.org>> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not
>> understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of experience
>> with them.
> 
> Please don't insult our community-- the issues with replay were
> pointed out by us to Ethereum in advance and were cited specifically
> in prior hardfork discussions long before Ethereum started editing
> their ledger for the economic benefit of its centralized
> administrators.
> 
> The lack of extensive discussion on these issues you're seeing is
> rather symptomatic of engineers that take stability seriously not
> taking BIP148 seriously; not symptomatic of people not knowing about
> them. The same concerns also applies to all these HF proposals (which
> for some reason you don't mention), arguably even stronger.  The same
> basic pattern exists: There are people that just don't care about the
> technical issues who have made up their minds, and so you don't see
> technical discussion.  Those people who do see the issues already
> called out the proposals as being ill-advised.   Replay isn't even the
> largest of the technical issues (network partitioning, for example, is
> a much larger one).
> 
> BIP149 is arguably something of another matter in particular because
> it has a time-frame that allows dealing with replay and other issues--
> and particularly because it has a time-frame that can allow for the
> avoidance of a meaningful fork at all.


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5952 bytes --]

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

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-06 23:12 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 [this message]
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
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=7117CE7C-3C6F-4342-8A43-072605EB3D1E@taoeffect.com \
    --to=contact@taoeffect.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=greg@xiph.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