1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545EE1A59
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 02:49:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8A87ED
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 02:49:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B4BC38A0D8B;
Thu, 4 Apr 2019 02:48:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:190404:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::rwKHnQ+UiF2Aa4Wi:cUDye
X-Hashcash: 1:25:190404:ethan.scruples@gmail.com::cQGMouuR5pR4N87T:Kk/A
X-Hashcash: 1:25:190404:dev@jonasschnelli.ch::DAw00V5x6ys8wL8l:blbzu
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Ethan Scruples <ethan.scruples@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 02:48:33 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748)
References: <CAPfvXf+JS6ZhXUieWVxiaNa4uhhWwafCk3odMKy5F_yi=XwngA@mail.gmail.com>
<816FFA03-B4D9-4ECE-AF15-85ACBFA4BA8F@jonasschnelli.ch>
<CACiOHGxxqm5Qn8J9u5oDE5Ek5smqB4E4iz4PJOZHpJO5kwP=-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACiOHGxxqm5Qn8J9u5oDE5Ek5smqB4E4iz4PJOZHpJO5kwP=-A@mail.gmail.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201904040248.34162.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED
autolearn=ham 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, 04 Apr 2019 05:05:16 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] assumeutxo and UTXO snapshots
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 02:49:44 -0000
On Wednesday 03 April 2019 15:39:29 Ethan Scruples via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If we can get mandatory UTXO commitments soft forked into Bitcoin, we get
> the advantage of a non-growing IBD,
No, we don't. This is exactly the danger. UTXO snapshots are NOT an
alternative to a real IBD. There are HUGE security implications for this.
Frankly, the danger that someone would do such a thing is itself a good
reason not to ever add UTXO commitments.
Luke
|
