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 2A8FCAB9 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:52:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com (mail-pf0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AB01237 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:52:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 189so51997637pfu.3 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:52:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thinlink-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CKYeJeDNersiplA/K6FAhjBH/m4mMZ9Jj1XNUWhxfXk=; b=0exnBByZkLs/lRKey45WU+2A9CoaBwYJPDdgvkOdJY/e3PREKVVRY4Yewp2MqmY+/E DxDlbrHxavMei6BPQ0Wmx/oapkbrSb9I6UoI0gSiDOE6nfr7Rpi/SZqduS6AXBrMhqEY 8iKQRpqNAY0vQJafgqkIbIUQU2Tjxqxj446JfKaWz4RW47K/u8KOpw+EyLd6UILhOjhb my32xicGEZOpSV+95OZHRvtd8l1t9d6447qlLfot0vnmyrHIbiujdG662a+u8RHMBWfm hIz8UWO/Coysr6wS8iAuZ4NRJmL82PqxEqE/8I3JGMKAXVuAMyof96PhVYQjqHXhxiDX aa5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CKYeJeDNersiplA/K6FAhjBH/m4mMZ9Jj1XNUWhxfXk=; b=tSnnoMLnDcpcJtup/8+jqyaRESWECalzntKb/RwvKtt78oUvaNLV5fto6AL5afgiUm S4rGgY7x0BHtizFRIJsxUR1Ky8Emw3KE7WBS33LbLPIx/1zmaIvaGLzu9uyBEiDlLNKm V+5gtcEhFY9GDpY1GYg98l2He4TqSW724NKBWMVgnR2EZrb2LTZ6SDMLHtS2z2zbe3FN 55zsthpCsceyb8Hz6+z+4rUdWt7UfwaXSQ8aDgczIT10Uj2EQ1sGG03VPBHVdwh3jKes 41yZos+HU/fr4vuYNpg7cQ9wX10LXZlI+LuisnpQyn2PwusAE+byTjLwv0QBadzKmc+d w5Bw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLkB1CC5QugJh21GgoVAth+Y+WmgzGV/Lxiy5GAzWkg+v2tzSzg5ynUpTSnRtFIml/k X-Received: by 10.99.167.10 with SMTP id d10mr41294258pgf.19.1485283962254; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a25sm7472484pgd.26.2017.01.24.10.52.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:52:40 -0800 (PST) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Johnson Lau References: From: Tom Harding Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:52:27 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:06:41 +0000 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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:52:48 -0000 On 1/24/2017 6:33 AM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 9. If the network characteristic byte is non-zero, and the existing > network characteristic bit is set, the masked version is used to > determine whether a transaction should be mined or relayed (policy change) Johnson, Your proposal supports 8 opt-out bits compatible with may earlier description: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-July/012917.html. If the existing network really wants to play along, it should execute a soft fork as soon as possible to support its own hard-fork opt-out bit ("network characteristic bit"). It is totally inadequate for a new network to rely on non-standardness in the existing network to prevent replay there. Instead, in the absence of a supported opt-out bit in the existing network, a responsible new network would allow something that is invalid in the existing network, for transactions where replay to the existing network is undesirable. It is an overreach for your BIP to suggest specific changes to be included in the new network, such as the specific O(n^2) fix you suggest. This is a matter for the new network itself.