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 DF99BEDB for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:27:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com (mail-ua0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8599D124 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id d1so2038231uak.1 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:27:27 -0800 (PST) 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=o5+UvJv7rPcAQV914OfUMEZWaYvp+rDWD96lEmyjLrM=; b=SMgxcFXOvGYyJiUwvriOZDZCYJ5igiYFrzMvi8HCf4PybCd73v8HTCOrm7WTsfDOK6 MtEtAG8VCNMExI0zjtjnwBxp3TZM/7lhlFvyFRzNRLwXHknQYeXY75vsnpHnvl/z7xNi cTuJCAOhVEjRyPxTwOPgsZVx1LqSaumy5PmKH87TeyD8AA9/kKNDUNjcErkYxjusQ0pQ DXg9aKyRguH0WHQt+IVgCl+qEC1FT6mg2hJMiUxHNBYCoIXvmTCZDHNg9M6RJkoXJ3sq SB7weSP7Kg92WzMRnq7oe5EXKuZPeeJvvmfZI3O0mljTPPimkRnQveUTRNcy4M+2n+VK Sz6Q== 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=o5+UvJv7rPcAQV914OfUMEZWaYvp+rDWD96lEmyjLrM=; b=HW4DHCsvmra9UZEYh7yZod3h7eYjv+XIDEkqOhUc4UMRfR5RlQOohWAe7nBZ4CMVsH m/f+BUvWamqZ6XCUtcaGt1SLDWS0qCmD/jmn3uNkzuctmZ03v7Bq2id+IlT/e1qcZ7nV GE/9Ry27WTRJrS/D7XPuibOfl2fn02zMuzj95YyHYc5HaANQykcN4RGdt407Mj7T1O5X fdu552EOaezBcCNhSslHIK01CWB/NvUN1Nhh3fJeCPYnvfJUGhEo2Cv78qZO7V1F8A/s aiuCog+VvVhGX/XXSAa0OSr4WLPOX0vgvigiTLpAxsHDU7ggj3Giz1N5kMLuFM4eJG2Z 1YiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteeihHDqMcuw8Zpq7Eat3wYNySbHlMeTmww0l4Cif4h/1SChen7 lbvdAEEbd9+B0BHY7PwqZ01ltgGOD+VkbrI2D+c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotaz4HF47CKEdXp6rEuWpGe/OlOF/uQloPhDiJGe2IYI+XqlkqgMWSM1AOoXNdua94AAvgkqoh+715v9GvJX10= X-Received: by 10.159.32.164 with SMTP id 33mr35700257uaa.61.1516073246741; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:27:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.85.152 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:27:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87zi5ehat5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87608btgyd.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87zi5ehat5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:27:26 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: E9CrLcNUtxW8Y2IgvyLQcr0D-Mk Message-ID: To: Rusty Russell , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Russell O'Connor , Kalle Alm Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 117 Feedback 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, 16 Jan 2018 03:27:28 -0000 On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The rule AFAICT is "standard transactions must still work". This was > violated with low-S, but the transformation was arguably trivial. That is my view, generally. Like any other principle, its applicability is modulated by the specific facts. For low-s the most critical mitigating specific facts were (in order of importance): Any third party could malleate non-conforming transactions to make them conform and that code to do this was written and run, that S-value malleation was being actively attacked at the time, and that the intention to eventually enforce lowS had been made clear a long time ahead and the vast majority of transactions were already conforming. In particular these facts meant that the change could not result in the confiscation of funds except in the case of a key-destroyed unconfirmed chain of timelock transactions which was already highly vulnerable due to the malleation attacks -- and even there, the non-standardness step itself wouldn't destroy the funds esp. given the malleation risk redemption of that sort of chain would probably be best accomplished with the collaboration of a miner.