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 1CC4AFC8 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:39:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FBF314E for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f34so10689769ioi.13 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:39:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream.io; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qlm921x/Gw2VzeuJlM6ww5VRcmahnkFv5kQePCkMYUk=; b=Dvqf+pMxB6tQxsVOqcZ9MebZ4sXw27yx9iZi4WJEv90TBQGSBLGbsVZ5betkqvTcY7 K/Pv/5y100KbjaX9AV703Nuc6YveLO3PmUyTOb92znbcJlyBYTaQiznVzoZh+zslBMMZ MfKgS5kRbL7vADXzmsEI6I4yTFn+KxyKORlOM= 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=qlm921x/Gw2VzeuJlM6ww5VRcmahnkFv5kQePCkMYUk=; b=dg6sD01j8aCdsVOD4e7CLcQnaXAiEkehivH6NtgPriF0UZb3CGKQFs/0lX5A/3iRtT AwmUgoQbbuQpCZ7VcAdjP6UF1rQcI6slr3xy1WMGFJTZ+v0JeJekEdwE3qeXtSmWdzVB ePBeP03jmBH68f5naPIAatH7v8i7x0vr8rkoJixZkDOCkHp+ZrvvHPU7Sn3/9U3a93ra 5rHKCSe5mll78wUMHMis5KoZ7Gy2VQ/79cY1lp8FmMwoZkfou6uP2XoEfTe3uKiZ3Dcj jC3gM2pWpkOtuU7/3R7hXB/zzsDmJ7kRNF8cFDk9e/pZKqzpNgF8Ko2Em0ELVFB2kMRp Zabg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteaG9xLV1qhVNxEWBBu6kmGBZh7OLL0DSt3jHKSXgBURZgDeXC2 /FmNs+7npRvIRPYWofnrSfZViP9igBsYKXdLIv7MSQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos4rDVgkXx8GFBTDCtWFmB4mkQEJqDH89gT96zLtPR+5PKT/Na606z8ekchg6HJJ4672zpqfafj/BlD+bvlOE0= X-Received: by 10.107.82.15 with SMTP id g15mr5553703iob.157.1516091989335; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:39:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.2.165.7 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:39:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201801160415.55197.luke@dashjr.org> References: <87608btgyd.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87zi5ehat5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <201801160415.55197.luke@dashjr.org> From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:39:28 -0500 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08265de878b94b0562e0acf1" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, HTML_MESSAGE, 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 Protocol Discussion , 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 08:39:51 -0000 --089e08265de878b94b0562e0acf1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Tuesday 16 January 2018 1:06:14 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. > > > > OTOH, use of altstack is completely standard, though in practice it's > > unused and so only a theoretical concern. > > I'm not aware of a single standard/BIP that uses the altstack at all. > By "standard transaction" here, Rusty means that (P2SH or Segwit) scripts that use the alt-stack pass the standardness checks and will be relayed by recent Bitcoin Core software. ---- Regarding lowS: I think the more severe standardness change was the added requirement that (some of the) pubkeys in a multisig must be parsable. I have talked with people who cannot retrieve their funds now, when before they could. However, like lowS, this was only a change to the standardness rules and not a consensus change, so these funds are not necessarily permanently lost. They can be retrieved with miner help. I don't see how BIP 117, which is a change in consensus rules that could cause permanent loss of otherwise well-secured funds (in addition to the other issues raised about BIP 117), is even comparable to the previous changes in only the standardness rules. --089e08265de878b94b0562e0acf1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday = 16 January 2018 1:06:14 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
<= span class=3D"">> The rule AFAICT is "standard transactions must st= ill work".=C2=A0 This was
> violated with low-S, but the transformation was arguably trivial.
>
> OTOH, use of altstack is completely standard, though in practice it= 9;s
> unused and so only a theoretical concern.

I'm not aware of a single standard/BIP that uses the altstack at= all.

By "standard transaction&quo= t; here, Rusty means that (P2SH or Segwit) scripts that use the alt-stack p= ass the standardness checks and will be relayed by recent Bitcoin Core soft= ware.

----

Regarding lowS= :=C2=A0 I think the more severe standardness change was the added requireme= nt that (some of the) pubkeys in a multisig must be parsable.=C2=A0 I have = talked with people who cannot retrieve their funds now, when before they co= uld.=C2=A0 However, like lowS, this was only a change to the standardness r= ules and not a consensus change, so these funds are not necessarily permane= ntly lost.=C2=A0 They can be retrieved with miner help.

<= /div>
I don't see how BIP 117, which is a change in consensus rules= that could cause permanent loss of otherwise well-secured funds (in additi= on to the other issues raised about BIP 117), is even comparable to the pre= vious changes in only the standardness rules.
--089e08265de878b94b0562e0acf1--