Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 15:50:27 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Joost Jager <joost.jager@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <ZHthQ3VsQgPRvV5m@petertodd.org>
References: <CAJBJmV-L4FusaMNV=_7L39QFDKnPKK_Z1QE6YU-wp2ZLjc=RrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <29ff546a6007cec1a0f85b91541f8e4d@dtrt.org>
 <CAB3F3Dtad8Fqb4R1phFU33SQPoL66nRz3rSHNbAaDSF=RN1NOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJBJmV8Vt_LLH-AEo-fCCs+S6uSy9UwC6QBakWY5tzn9Utwb8w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qvLuhofuOWT70oaS"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJBJmV8Vt_LLH-AEo-fCCs+S6uSy9UwC6QBakWY5tzn9Utwb8w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Standardisation of an unstructured taproot annex
Precedence: list


--qvLuhofuOWT70oaS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 11:14:27AM +0200, Joost Jager via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Depending on policy to mitigate this annex malleability vector could
> mislead developers into believing their transactions are immune to
> replacement, when in fact they might not be. This potential misalignment
> could result in developers and businesses constructing systems based on
> assumptions that could be compromised in the future, mirroring the
> situation that unfolded with zero-confirmation payments and rbf.
>=20
> It may thus be more prudent to permit the utilization of the annex without
> restrictions, inform developers of its inherent risks, and acknowledge th=
at
> Bitcoin, in its present state, might not be ideally suited for certain
> types of applications?

In the specific case of annex replacement leading to larger transactions, in
almost all cases you only care about the annex malleability causing the
transaction to take longer to get mined, due to it being larger. The fact t=
he
transaction has become larger does not matter if the transaction does in fa=
ct
get mined, eg due to an out-of-band payment by the "attacker".

The only exception is the rare cases where some transaction processing
software/hardware has actual limits on transaction size. Eg you could imagi=
ne a
hardware wallet that simply *can't* process a transaction larger than a cer=
tain
size due to a lack of RAM.

I don't think this is a good rational to make use of the annex standard. Qu=
ite
the contrary: we should be thinking about if and how to fix annex malleabil=
ity
in a future soft fork.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--qvLuhofuOWT70oaS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=gau+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qvLuhofuOWT70oaS--