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: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F26AAE81
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:51:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C420129
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:51:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id 74586140B96; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:51:43 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E76D5BF9-41BF-4AF5-BBAC-06F4EF574EBE@toom.im>
References: <CAPg+sBjJcqeqGLHnPyWt23z3YoCRGozQupuMxy51J_-hdkKBSA@mail.gmail.com>
<E76D5BF9-41BF-4AF5-BBAC-06F4EF574EBE@toom.im>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:44:25 +1030
Message-ID: <878u4poixq.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:53:50 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:51:47 -0000
Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 1) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction that is
>> invalid to the new rules.
>>
>> The receiver wallet chooses what address/script to accept coins on.
>> They'll upgrade to the new softfork rules before creating an address
>> that depends on the softfork's features.
>>
>> So, not a problem.
>
>
> Mallory wants to defraud Bob with a 1 BTC payment for some beer. Bob
> runs the old rules. Bob creates a p2pkh address for Mallory to
> use. Mallory takes 1 BTC, and creates an invalid SegWit transaction
> that Bob cannot properly validate and that pays into one of Mallory's
> wallets. Mallory then immediately spends the unconfirmed transaction
> into Bob's address. Bob sees what appears to be a valid transaction
> chain which is not actually valid.
Pretty sure Bob's wallet will be looking for "OP_DUP OP_HASH160
<pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG" scriptSig. The SegWit-usable
outputs will (have to) look different, won't they?
Cheers,
Rusty.
|
