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 AB029BD0 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:29:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f175.google.com (mail-yw0-f175.google.com [209.85.161.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BC3E8C for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:29:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w75so6897788ywg.1 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:29:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NQBnzF1VS30ZjbJrc1UG6XvAxIMjVaEkTmUq6Mz9E1k=; b=gk0e3LqZw8dHkXyh+zTtHh3a+KvobutgUlYCfMHsYsV9Q+RdXqJwBp5eVHvv+LKIi/ 5VnT+hCxApLhkVfapffP84qA4s5nn7bEAFmfQawherGnNmrRCOOAw7gM7YtmOcmmwhPY wDhM+n+wNcorHJEbl7Bz7CwsSJ/4WORsT0X5fXMvPyVG9oAj8jXkgJqkiAFkNZ/Xp5Uh KdTyDGOIr4j0k8ZxOZXo5eus7pHz22RJF/RGLcUm4lu6X5srURTwLAiNvx+Dh2+hT2AH NRaXdhhUY2Nc0q0wbDL12zq/aVHF6oE1wADWo2BGms3gH3OHQcf+4rLqJatoZ/2zW9ca Bulg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NQBnzF1VS30ZjbJrc1UG6XvAxIMjVaEkTmUq6Mz9E1k=; b=Sjo4+OPsGLAIFHwZrvSBk+iqAhatLyUkqQ9DALzqQkTPKcm3GgK5KtIQnFBVBNyGEM GxYBhunYuWa8hh7+JssQz2NPg79267JQMjVOZlcQ3oYY1DDAKNFD/Iz1rRaesjFF7n4j CG0Vyg+qfNF7eUedBwOoqnirmgfYjYhCiNqmOJdvX2n139M5Nz04hGl+emuVlZWKdDQM VQYw1gHTnfWim19cLmr8aX2JPYv4YfTzjl+5QGqHHs9No5RClAo+M0me/AngfnBmz8Dm 3wD7rJBLzIczNkG+ASz1hYIqWs9bVUNdM25LZe5T+vc7qHYWvpjNUtKVIZ2tKJsbEuiO C0og== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLV6LyQoqmbLWIl64U2D414gZ2s7L4XXfQSYfLMlIwTYH6WOtSRfA/vKmwsT7wv9Ctjit3mOhjvtd5m6A== X-Received: by 10.129.162.151 with SMTP id z145mr20385481ywg.337.1485329354400; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:29:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.75.67 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.75.67 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:29:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <45F53199-C8AC-4DD3-B746-D56F9F01946B@xbt.hk> References: <311FE02A-F3B5-4F88-B6C8-F0E78CC46903@xbt.hk> <45F53199-C8AC-4DD3-B746-D56F9F01946B@xbt.hk> From: Natanael Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:29:13 +0100 Message-ID: To: Johnson Lau Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork 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, 25 Jan 2017 07:29:15 -0000 --94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Den 25 jan. 2017 08:22 skrev "Johnson Lau" : Assuming Alice is paying Bob with an old style time-locked tx. Under your proposal, after the hardfork, Bob is still able to confirm the time-locked tx on both networks. To fulfil your new rules he just needs to send the outputs to himself again (with different tx format). But as Bob gets all the money on both forks, it is already a successful replay Why would Alice be sitting on an old-style signed transaction with UTXO:s none of which she controls (paying somebody else), with NO ability to substitute the transaction for one where she DOES control an output, leaving her unable to be the one spending the replay protecting child transaction? --94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
De= n 25 jan. 2017 08:22 skrev "Johnson Lau" <jl2012@xbt.hk>:
Assuming Alice is paying= Bob with an old style time-locked tx. Under your proposal, after the hardf= ork, Bob is still able to confirm the time-locked tx on both networks. To f= ulfil your new rules he just needs to send the outputs to himself again (wi= th different tx format). But as Bob gets all the money on both forks, it is= already a successful replay

Why would Alice be sitting on an old-= style signed transaction with UTXO:s none of which she controls (paying som= ebody else), with NO ability to substitute the transaction for one where sh= e DOES control an output, leaving her unable to be the one spending the rep= lay protecting child transaction?=C2=A0
--94eb2c11555e8b2ef80546e63046--