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 2592587A for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:45:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2BC4561 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z3so12137301wme.5 for ; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:45:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockchain.com; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Azkg28QTSwX+u3UMxeVaOLaQBPtFnq/46UnMSS80txQ=; b=NTfSP0goNZQYjX0OZAzvwgYq2nhmNmtlIK5x4K/Ix+QypUE+m9JjVEhM921XOnBJMZ frdicGe8iBeysyz2jbeHZj96JwcbAI+001IvZgaaC+fW6dbcTwLLVD0HdYd4/VkM6PBB wjA1YEIwW51hLfiPpHNZHAMitwLK9343pR/fY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Azkg28QTSwX+u3UMxeVaOLaQBPtFnq/46UnMSS80txQ=; b=G8VTKR58E53Q20P1DG8r7QV8NobiwPbTc8Cf1N23FOwH/zGgGLXEk5sa5ceZG6qZh6 x+ZqHBTIRm3oggRKi+rWRZ94KsXGt529Q/zIbs0a0uyZIIyraqA9L4f7DusYkg1aP+KB o8YrUmwLm5RnJXqeb1VLw3akd8VaEFHmfNEWM08Z6N+n1HZhKxqpzam1nrEscx12NVzU 5VbGil9YXpb4+QkiiDbJPo5Q6ZuWdVJBoa3iYbHODRA3esYIvWxs1BCzh3+AarcFOZtD aeYP9dcfMs7ImWIcwQbQn3MsvfRRuOzWqqkAiYrvBlgRxeing2YQxyhMCrfCPEbXl4WI wRsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5fLc0CfDldAdfG4S5NEB+uOpOCboiEwbTlmTRQqOeVNiVUiFC1 NbMOAQURD112ViBRr+AeN8omBA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Tmm/dByctQkmkztE4kkosey6vAd0OF7WBFKWpBT6IdX9fBF4gnQjLAoCU+Qt68PwDpCtNIgA== X-Received: by 10.28.224.87 with SMTP id x84mr864165wmg.118.1510159505264; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.2.1.168] ([212.161.45.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d195sm2395028wmd.30.2017.11.08.08.45.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:45:04 -0800 (PST) From: Mats Jerratsch Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44BDD102-B4A4-411E-83C2-315051FE0679"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:45:01 +0000 In-Reply-To: To: Jacob Eliosoff References: <7601C2CD-8544-4501-80CE-CAEB402A72D2@blockchain.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled 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, 08 Nov 2017 16:45:35 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalised Replay Protection for Future Hard Forks 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: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:45:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_44BDD102-B4A4-411E-83C2-315051FE0679 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hey Jacob! > Take the specific and common case of non-upgraded wallet software. = Suppose a HF happens, and becomes the network used by 90% of users. = Will old wallets still default to the old nForkId (10% legacy chain)? = If so, I'd expect a lot of accidental mis-sends on that chain. With this proposal implemented, a 'mis-send' is fundamentally = impossible. The address contains the identifier of the token that should = be sent. If anything, it's possible to 'mis-receive'. That is, the receiving wallet was not aware of a newer chain, and the = receiver actually wanted to receive the newer token, but instead his = wallet created an address for the old token. It is the responsibility of = the receiver to write a correct invoice. This is the case everywhere = else in the world too, so this seems like a reasonable trade-off. I would even argue that this should hold in a legal case, where the = receiver cannot claim that he was expecting a payment in another token = (contrary to how it is today, like when users send BTC to a BCH address, = losing their funds with potentially no legal right for reimbursement). = If I sent someone an invoice over 100=E2=82=AC, I cannot later proclaim = that I actually expected $100. With this proposal, wallets are finally able to distinguish between = different tokens. With this ability, I expect to see different = implementations, some wallets which advertise staying conservative, = following a strict ruleset, and other wallets being more experimental, = following hashing rate or other metrics. --Apple-Mail=_44BDD102-B4A4-411E-83C2-315051FE0679 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJaAzSOAAoJEAYZmwZ/PsbKTU0QAIixf5AaL14W62IeWwcG7GyE 1/ECncf1DAHNURWRocU6UU1mxVxFwgJDMpTm4oPLrtS7UIrsChf5E3Zmy0+OFly7 UN/Fj23XB3kBE4abPkfGUumklXOvWYDmK4sD5x2H0i4JOHYUuD4dg2J3tL044XZX daK656sA+Q+nQru5waaP3kKr/3J5hT0QzihedIFS7WPN1GZfqUWQU+HDY8UOqCH+ K33NYZNAAO3q5Turt9WWkODwyiQahLmZBcQqmuncJsG1wOL4+lsiFrBXL6MCOoq4 +0wk04qXhZLa9MFv87sNZ4wILKic+pR/5J2rxc9Y3THfyly+Oa3mNS5+vM/+yx7o Qdm8mKBvND/HOaSSx4iC+y9Ldckn5tnv9GJDzeTAqCLCYBusX/I4nV+GEU3sgqxi 0o/zmjxiSQZv3TxHrmkmweuZA+426Nwxch87T7H8UrWNKU+qgHJivMfNp7658iwu qo0zuega9UXvNuM1+E9Jsgf4t4v4epDbLCRNWa3AU86EFXyk5ZYqQQjC+DZqyEDI DKuRvOlCWjV1tmFl442pFrENHjMnd0hIu4IMs8TcUUbKovYLePW8WyW2lQ06Zh1o Eu3xyGgfwQbiTIEgRXK2lNm7MrSzr3MjJsCalySDJ4o8d4H8U5Gj/t2WYFz2oyJ0 I1P4BxspOUbHWuXohOgD =jfwy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_44BDD102-B4A4-411E-83C2-315051FE0679--