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 3B29EB77 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 23:19:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f47.google.com (mail-lf0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6965C142 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 23:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f47.google.com with SMTP id t72so45098024lff.1 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:34 -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=cVArfkwaDmmdmeCbpR3qwD0txYu1SDA95DTMIUi9HC0=; b=LT783fhSMsPxT7vwwUZvwya1vLzJ/J2VfPAEtsRepsXkqJBlpQ8eBzSN1LfaspGXN6 oyuzmyzyX2DDoqD9l6oqwnEiftegn3YwySPIY3J6wGr7d3DmlALK+AHXxrwaZF4E0HRB gFYoYRR5u+DMGzORTqf3jT/trx0JPvsNbmVPAlUq88PMxWHpZKlqtb5KolA/SGm+hHsX wvfB7filUKlshnMAsL9xnkjbBZrTyyx+alFZjrDDVCcf6opw7tMrh4uZAfG5o1GQQRFt bHyK/P628OwZkR7KUWIY7IOBo2GLfZJiUBKGKs4+BSRbAM+1FnEvKAE60CzeZNoTUiiW yLKA== 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=cVArfkwaDmmdmeCbpR3qwD0txYu1SDA95DTMIUi9HC0=; b=Y35FhYLR/OWaVrKDMyinBo2TA8G4V3wihQFmOB8PTXxxT4d3/ITSymXCmYS0o7nkIX 5rxD1XZpZ5LcBaame4kXIeTBDC7mzQd4kyJCKYubnx6ZqL3JYfdVNF6k9XTBTretNoG7 4OtORq6uoXJ+EwG2DMLm3frFaGcJZHYKBDA3X1HwU2G0x5tnbFMnXMksRV657uEMOjXL gqK0Y0/NHCvUg4SinHQBtQNjNS8WltvrsTVp9vFzf59vRI6yGwVg5ju6qLtV7eEklr8x OWClcpBv75TvAhpoc0l0GqCpZpcrw+nXweMPC2kW+MBpsf/jIe7GvwUzmQtgIEWcoLbL Onjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113ABQSMKcVzw578Uea6fPGDYLVi6dhWIceNvLAPjAEijzijsLv9 1xxdCcDYhwocfOgcRVi+OQSdnP63cXXY X-Received: by 10.46.70.9 with SMTP id t9mr2067149lja.40.1499987972838; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.43.65 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4921ce4f-06bc-8ff1-4e70-5bd55d1ff5ca@osc.co.cr> References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com> <1c1d06a9-2e9f-5b2d-42b7-d908ada4b09e@gmail.com> <001b20f2-1f33-3484-8ad2-1420ae1a2df5@gmail.com> <03cf3326-ae84-96f9-5eee-158054341eff@osc.co.cr> <0be972b9-328c-394a-1e90-bd7a37642598@osc.co.cr> <4921ce4f-06bc-8ff1-4e70-5bd55d1ff5ca@osc.co.cr> From: Lucas Clemente Vella Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:19:12 -0300 Message-ID: To: Dan Libby , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f798c49e9ab05543b2a1c" 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 23:36:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] how to disable segwit in my build? 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, 13 Jul 2017 23:19:35 -0000 --f403045f798c49e9ab05543b2a1c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-07-13 18:58 GMT-03:00 Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > If I understand correctly, my node will accept the incoming tx inputs > but obviously will not perform any segwit related validation, thus those > inputs are not fully validated. I don't yet understand how my node > thinks they are valid at all given that it does not understand P2WPKH > address format, so either it doesn't need to, or P2WPKH is somehow > already valid. I know this has all been discussed in the past, so if > someone can point me towards a document that explains it I'd be happy to > read that. > >From your perspective, the P2WPKH will look like a anyone-can-spend transaction, thus, valid no matter who is spending. So, you would be basically leaving the security of segwit transactions to those who actually are interested in and using them. If your fork becomes popular, it would decrease the security of Segwit transactions to something akin to the security model of the Drivechain currently being discussed: only those particularly interested in that particular sidechain (and segwit witness could be loosely categorized into a sidechain) will be responsible to prevent others from stealing funds from the anyone-can-spend transactions. -- Lucas Clemente Vella lvella@gmail.com --f403045f798c49e9ab05543b2a1c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2017= -07-13 18:58 GMT-03:00 Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev <bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
If I understand correctly, my node will accept the incoming tx inputs
but obviously will not perform any segwit related validation, thus those inputs are not fully validated.=C2=A0 I don't yet understand how my nod= e
thinks they are valid at all given that it does not understand P2WPKH
address format, so either it doesn't need to, or P2WPKH is somehow
already valid.=C2=A0 I know this has all been discussed in the past, so if<= br> someone can point me towards a document that explains it I'd be happy t= o
read that.

From your perspecti= ve, the P2WPKH will look like a anyone-can-spend transaction, thus, valid n= o matter who is spending. So, you would be basically leaving the security o= f segwit transactions to those who actually are interested in and using the= m. If your fork becomes popular, it would decrease the security of Segwit t= ransactions to something akin to the security model of the Drivechain curre= ntly being discussed: only those particularly interested in that particular= sidechain (and segwit witness could be loosely categorized into a sidechai= n) will be responsible to prevent others from stealing funds from the anyon= e-can-spend transactions.

--
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella@gmail.com
--f403045f798c49e9ab05543b2a1c--