Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.45; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qa0-f45.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: adam.back@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTGTUYgA9OebK7aaTnrMEf=OMaW=e36m_0BMyprCX=yFQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJna-HjwMRff_+7BvcR2YME9f2yUQPvfKOGZ1qq9d0nOGqORkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<78662993-6C67-4480-8062-55CC9FA63908@bitsofproof.com>
	<54C26BFE.1080103@gmail.com>
	<CAJna-HiXxt5E=FBiDuWMCKrK4C0dcvhHEjTAoK3LGQLafJOqtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<954BF4E3-8DF2-4927-9E25-C5D66127FFA5@bitsofproof.com>
	<CALqxMTGTUYgA9OebK7aaTnrMEf=OMaW=e36m_0BMyprCX=yFQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:17:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CALqxMTH2F5-Aj+U-D5KAtbJAAejCxmKgi+8knYAmSKJ_De0kyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE
Precedence: list

Issues like that particular one (simple elegant fix, strong utility
justification) plus previously more privacy stuff (like committed tx,
homomorphic encrypted values) was what got me wondering about a way to
do a live beta (one-way peg) and then to get excited about the 2wp &
Greg's mechanism for that.

I think it would be hypothetically possible to make a "special"
singleton sidechain which is merge mined, and has a consensus rule to
require some proportion of reward be sent to it via coinbase tx (a
mechanism to address incentive incompatibility) and a general timeline
eg 12mo to next version +/- etc. might be an interesting thing to
explore as a place to store live versions of "hard fork wishlist"
items where people who need them early can help validate them.

I am not sure that helps the full network upgrade issue though.

Adam

On 23 January 2015 at 16:12, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> its an always offline node, so it knows nothing really other than a
> BIP 32 hierarchy of keys & a signature request.
>
> So the signature request has to drag with it information to validate
> what the value is, in order to be sure not to sign away 99% to fees.
> Signing the transaction value and having the network validate that the
> value in the sig matches full nodes view of the tx value avoids that
> issue.  Simple, elegant, but... we have no live beta mechanism, and
> hence risk & testing makes that tricky.  Plus the full network upgrade
> issue if its not backwards compatible.
>
> Adam
>
> On 23 January 2015 at 16:08, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
>> You mean an isolated signing device without memory right?
>>
>> An isolated node would still know the transactions substantiating its coins,
>> why would it sign them away to fees ?
>>
>> Tamas Blummer
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 4:47 PM, slush <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Correct, plus the most likely scenario in such attack is that the malware
>> even don't push such tx with excessive fees to the network, but send it
>> directly to attacker's pool/miner.
>>
>> M.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, one major attack vector is someone isolating your node,
>>> getting you to sign away your whole wallet to fee, and then selling it to a
>>> mining pool to mine it before you can figure why your transactions aren't
>>> making it to the network.  In such an attack, the relay rules aren't
>>> relevant, and if the attacker can DoS you for 24 hours, it doesn't take a
>>> ton of mining power to make the attack extremely likely to succeed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/23/2015 10:31 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>>>
>>> Not a fix, but would reduce the financial risk, if nodes were not relaying
>>> excessive fee transactions.
>>>
>>> Tamas Blummer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
>> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
>> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
>> Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>