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 B4F851F50 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:22:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C8E78D for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:22:46 +0000 (UTC) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550604165; cv=none; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; b=fl1+SfAIesQ0+z6O/uBLDOjY+eVFMYvY5AvlxDyNNJhqiyZqn0whr1efAFQhI8/39qyqkYTnGhXy1y8ZPGbHW87AaCpif9JR8vaivEUZF4zrOp6VjRPHp8yCQvjtMahj7ZjiOZQIvtEOAyG+BmT0Q8Hl7NJgvMQUvGeSLs4AqA8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; t=1550604165; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To:ARC-Authentication-Results; bh=Vcla4mcLXGDK0sjTnyGwozR6mQntocEK1QcwjW1ZyTI=; b=etwILmABn9wEuM2Q6SS99KJlVAb85giCWlL108LW9ZH4OBF8/7kYw4tkuIbP95SLeE1k+8Xs4jYKXLtx1XGavouyUclEe3ZTmgUxe8ZmeRVHGUAQD2wsXdJzJofnnMpmKv/pTalyBr4hKs9fLkKYbgkg/wmZg2NvSH9ZGVARBVY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com; dkim=pass header.i=xbt.hk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jl2012@xbt.hk; dmarc=pass header.from= header.from= Received: from [10.8.0.100] (n218103189223.netvigator.com [218.103.189.223]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1550604163295229.9847709374062; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:22:43 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\)) From: Johnson Lau In-Reply-To: <201902191904.04412.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:22:07 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk> <201902191904.04412.luke@dashjr.org> To: Luke Dashjr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39) X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:22:07 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:22:47 -0000 This only depends on the contract between the payer and payee. If the = contract says address reuse is unacceptable, it=E2=80=99s unacceptable. = It has nothing to do with how the payee spends the coin. We can=E2=80=99t = ban address reuse at protocol level (unless we never prune the chain), = so address reuse could only be prevented at social level. Using NOINPUT is also a very weak excuse: NOINPUT always commit to the = value. If the payer reused an address but for different amount, the = payee can=E2=80=99t claim the coin is lost due to previous NOINPUT use. = A much stronger way is to publish the key after a coin is well = confirmed. > On 20 Feb 2019, at 3:04 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote: >=20 > On Thursday 13 December 2018 12:32:44 Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >> While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other = proposals >> require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of tagging? >=20 > Yes, this seems to break the situation where a wallet wants to use = NOINPUT for=20 > everything, including normal L1 payments. For example, in the scenario = where=20 > address reuse will be rejected/ignored by the recipient = unconditionally, and=20 > the payee is considered to have burned their bitcoins by attempting = it. >=20 > Luke