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
|
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 827901C17
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:32 +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 7BBFD806
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:31 +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 DF61A38A0C83;
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:190219:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::iSlbbb7DDUdJlecH:bsyyp
X-Hashcash: 1:25:190219:jl2012@xbt.hk::OTN67qamU5qDVTpq:aigYc
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:03 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748)
References: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <9F8C0789-48E9-448A-A239-DB4AFB902A00@xbt.hk>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201902191904.04412.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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:22:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging
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: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:04:32 -0000
On Thursday 13 December 2018 12:32:44 Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other proposals
> require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of tagging?
Yes, this seems to break the situation where a wallet wants to use NOINPUT for
everything, including normal L1 payments. For example, in the scenario where
address reuse will be rejected/ignored by the recipient unconditionally, and
the payee is considered to have burned their bitcoins by attempting it.
Luke
|
