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 9B898901 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 23:02:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2427D1A5 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 23:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id p62so52439298vkp.0 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:02:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=EXjwB7jgv/QCRA//KFgi39iYpSBwmjvDzn97bpOu0hE=; b=J0Hervu93OmEM3C6YO4yX3MGpf4zh+mTgW7zPyb+hzu3/7NGdN+f9f4K34gmPuHR0j Vb2avEyxTawdTroqyKbbjnXPhdH0S0HZLBEfCi8KzoF+6KVB51iM83Y5UTzsTtVSyHLP Jabi8+16IhlDvIWwlucfivOPO7VwmPu+LV26m1wp5mUmTOw3keT4gWlEBFNrCbqz+8ja G9Oe4B74MfWHKbnZWzGF5GjczGTBDJ+1jhpmAIlZQZLr9ACyVM1K5Gjz45kcVCM8PR+m PKJPBaRrlPMTxtbnhYXd1vCOx9+oQp8KvFOBiXQEif70AMMLX6gn+QyS3mW5l01voXJ/ mPdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EXjwB7jgv/QCRA//KFgi39iYpSBwmjvDzn97bpOu0hE=; b=Ll1ZW3S53dnrUTDd4tAJMn2kiXRrFw/ogM9r4rhgyjyTQC2vOVPufGIFVL0Us9/bWH 7oxXZ90/TRFwWuXxFcIee08PTos9b1oZQp2B+B9mwnK1xDqikCXQ4bLcZsPgweSNRBTd WiSiB5L3zbV33EA0wbIb6CKC7wYGyeb26gUqu162wrhZmU8Nedji2AFl8LSvVO+FKS/V fQoITNaW5dKdhaLr8sAXlwf6rfW64KtStlKjy4ZX26Fs6Hr2rS0UT92mSjfUvZubVv/1 rse2R6AQLXqFghcdfUQAMscr4mNjGB1+tiaIE6d1l1Rza6breCvFL6FaJY83QJc1sgTP iMpw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCIVj75AvBykq0Wtnvi/0vItV7E0nfSx+y9RhymVFmYfWNDDU2h BtV67DUq7uuNjw5HDVlhFLcHEjFSDA== X-Received: by 10.31.48.15 with SMTP id w15mr12545640vkw.130.1496790127191; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.20.66 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:02:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <31833011-7179-49D1-A07E-8FD9556C4534@taoeffect.com> References: <31833011-7179-49D1-A07E-8FD9556C4534@taoeffect.com> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 23:02:06 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ULUqVdoNn7izJuI6P6nLrX2koGs Message-ID: To: Tao Effect Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable 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, 06 Jun 2017 23:02:14 -0000 On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev 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.