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
|
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 8F5B592B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:45:45 +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 2E69E217
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:45:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 542CC38A17C5;
Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:45:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160608:jl2012@xbt.hk::P8dNxquYYhTrYBZG:cX+WP
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160608:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::dJaf9w/S2qwsBGSy:arpEp
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:45:10 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.16; x86_64; ; )
References: <A7E9BC23-6860-4B31-9D4E-11F771A5E581@xbt.hk>
<201606080729.24789.luke@dashjr.org>
<D192E876-1A4F-4B06-86F6-54F1BDEC857D@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <D192E876-1A4F-4B06-86F6-54F1BDEC857D@xbt.hk>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201606081645.12598.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP141 segwit consensus rule update: extension of
witness program definition
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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:45:45 -0000
On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 8:23:51 AM Johnson Lau wrote:
> If someday 32 bytes hash is deemed to be unsafe, the txid would also be
> unsafe and a hard fork might be needed. Therefore, I don=E2=80=99t see ho=
w a
> witness program larger than 40 bytes would be useful in any case (as it is
> more expensive and takes more UTXO space). I think Pieter doesn=E2=80=99t=
want to
> make it unnecessarily lenient.
There is no harm in being lenient, but it limits the ability to do softfork=
=20
upgrades in the future. I appreciate Pieter's concern that we'd need to do=
=20
more development and testing to go to this extreme, which is why I am only=
=20
asking the limit raised to 75 bytes.
Luke
|
