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 9210A94F for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:41:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f170.google.com (mail-qt0-f170.google.com [209.85.216.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44AC3136 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c45so33478097qtb.1 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:41:19 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=x/E854JHFMTFl0W9lKE6YIgS4Cw8Zq8CIWjFEmdIQd4=; b=pUUh2QZwDCGjC4FbauHTDytpf3txritOyo+1cHt98V3hg6OjFDYdK1f1v1iYfjHSI6 DBg3KOGogX1OsgJylPlk1kRJaYWTtOT52aO1dvqktMR9CH8MlS9rr8TXNR0j/r4/I3Be IKMs6cCo6vgKpmZVzz+syEN7kuzgqrwwArx/CB4velJGEtbsBfbHbmRicUm64aFbiR7W i7obuRW48YMyVNap2pc9Syn7byri8dRG0qU+SioQoet0Lznsw2y9lNwOGPcunDHv22b0 qlWVvgew5SvYodKl0Cz7CzhieV090sSRNPQzFgYqZULpVeE9TjXfSmQPlEzr/7mlF+n/ BFOw== 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; bh=x/E854JHFMTFl0W9lKE6YIgS4Cw8Zq8CIWjFEmdIQd4=; b=k+QsFzkiAy9ZW0vrZF+e5qy4GKoEevMuk/nZrIswXPbWJK4Q29gSVYFkA/rIBHyoWN KmMfGlGLiR/kqmCwr1eRl1rOjdFE4xi/pWo7o4lmtk0BsCu5Keyx4gOcFRLUn+LmxV4d lC2+mCV/qX1P/TfLVDvXXfR691xeYl77Freslp0wdSXuPNbdmxjVjyIZZtjQJ103U4H3 fUsrsrnUd+oTWHuFF//q7p4dY24Umylmz0F8MUrnLaZVmqo5lH13OnP8YWZFQVelx589 ZGdHcGosVglU0+221hUm5i6i/47kFi+yaxNt4VTSg9pNCG/ipO2AjP9DSg/W3T1T5peo HRTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4WNDxgShcepdVkSyrPX/6l/jRh1sFQNr93ZmGYquVpSlF2Mk6Q EZ7PK4h0LtIwd4R2U5Ni634iw7xuVqge X-Received: by 10.200.52.215 with SMTP id x23mr6859507qtb.276.1493318478306; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:41:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.47.193 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:41:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Alex Mizrahi Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:41:17 +0300 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11454bd06fa08b054e2a4d50 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trustless Segwit activation bounty protocol (aka. bribing the miners) 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: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:41:19 -0000 --001a11454bd06fa08b054e2a4d50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 2B. If Segwit has not activated at height H, Input 1 of the Bounty Payout > is not valid since it spends a P2WPKH output, preventing the miner from > including the Bounty Payout transaction in the block. (However, the output > of the Segwit Assertion tx can be claimed since it is treated as > anyone-can-spend, although this is not an issue since it is a very small > amount). > It's a small amount by itself, but miners who are aware of Bounty Payout Transaction will try to include both these transactions (and both are valid both on SW and non-SW chains by definition of SW being a soft fork). If you set timelock of BPT to (H+1) then you sort of discourage this behavior because a miner of block H might be not the same as miner of block (H+1), thus he cannot grab this bounty for sure. Still, there is a chance that same miner will mine both blocks, so game-theoretically it makes sense to insert SAT into your block since your expected payoff is positive. So I'm afraid miners will just grab these bounties regardless of segwit activation. --001a11454bd06fa08b054e2a4d50 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2B. If Segwit has not acti= vated at height H, Input 1 of the Bounty Payout is not valid since it spend= s a P2WPKH output, preventing the miner from including the Bounty Payout tr= ansaction in the block. (However, the output of the Segwit Assertion tx can= be claimed since it is treated as anyone-can-spend, although this is not a= n issue since it is a very small amount).

=
It's a small amount by itself, but miners who are aware of B= ounty Payout Transaction will try to include both these transactions (and b= oth are valid both on SW and non-SW chains by definition of SW being a soft= fork).

If you set timelock of BPT to (H+1) then y= ou sort of discourage this behavior because a miner of block H might be not= the same as miner of block (H+1), thus he cannot grab this bounty for sure= .

Still, there is a chance that same miner will mi= ne both blocks, so game-theoretically it makes sense to insert SAT into you= r block since your expected payoff is positive.

So= I'm afraid miners will just grab these bounties regardless of segwit a= ctivation.
--001a11454bd06fa08b054e2a4d50--