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
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Return-Path: <yanmaani@cock.li>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0D4C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Apr 2021 01:22:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED12402CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Apr 2021 01:22:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cock.li
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id KvFgnJgToiJp
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Apr 2021 01:22:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail.cock.li (unknown [37.120.193.123])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5D0640254
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Apr 2021 01:22:53 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.li; s=mail;
t=1618881771; bh=UCulSLVFqyGYfmJ01hJNAN5IvHMAGhwe9L76zCG1zpU=;
h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=0aNmG/rxWFhMzYYfVnWEGzOscugWDiRsQFMxOvDO0q8BIQmPHr5EhZeer7Ch3Fmcf
vct3/UkGGSkW+/zElOPB+b0YIN9pZtK8WsWkZWmn2lilqlWWfZM8+G89Ul0FItYVFk
el1E7rZcm1tv3DHPXqww2rZh2abyH0dgj5addzRLkCitg77q9lHsz6leV5jNZYoRPI
Q8E16gcjk++9i6c1yM+6GRSKI50s/rZE6eoahPn99zzxDL0TANCYZivue06+czt1eb
vP4Nk+sjsxpOEVJksVU3ufdn9jR4uZSLcukXtG3oAcA9zFgpSUrkpreAQh0fagWfVZ
mdQIIIiwzPr4w==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 01:22:51 +0000
From: yanmaani@cock.li
To: Christopher Gilliard <christopher.gilliard@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAK=nyAxOa8fsVfxucH7WTTMn25BCzgQ28h_sNsunedpCoRXjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK=nyAxOa8fsVfxucH7WTTMn25BCzgQ28h_sNsunedpCoRXjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bfea86cbe0d63df5219b77ca2409cea1@cock.li>
X-Sender: yanmaani@cock.li
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.15
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:28:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - limiting OP_RETURN / HF
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 20 Apr 2021 01:22:54 -0000
This has already been discussed and proposed in various papers and
articles, typically to replace SHA-256d with something else. It
basically works, but there's a some tiny issues:
1) Who goes first?
If you first calculate the expensive PoW and then do a cheap SHA-256d
around it, anyone can malleate it by changing the outer PoW.
If you first calculate the cheap SHA-256d and then do an expensive PoW
around it, it would work, but then you would have to retool the P2P
protocol.
2) What's the incentive for miners?
In a "normal" soft-fork, miners have the incentive to upgrade because
their blocks will be orphaned if they don't, and even the old clients
won't accept them.
Here, miners will be able to produce an alternate chain that will appear
valid to old clients, and that the new miners won't be able to orphan
(since their hash power is much weaker).
|
