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
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1S36zE-0004nv-SE
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:28:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-gx0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-gx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1S36z9-0001ls-3s
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:28:04 +0000
Received: by ggcy3 with SMTP id y3so166311ggc.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 01 Mar 2012 06:27:53 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates
10.52.71.226 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.71.226;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com
designates 10.52.71.226 as permitted sender)
smtp.mail=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
dkim=pass header.i=gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.52.71.226])
by 10.52.71.226 with SMTP id y2mr8032405vdu.78.1330612073733 (num_hops
= 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 06:27:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.71.226 with SMTP id y2mr6763422vdu.78.1330612073482; Thu,
01 Mar 2012 06:27:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.151.200 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 06:27:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPBPUnpj=u53Nvvvu54e2X462gPshLQ5rUcPosxvoNAXp6uN8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhb+gYMwp1OJuCHYt5=BU63=YBWOFaLLthHBkN_U-scaA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPBPUnqgV_hHYwFoB_1qXMvEaE1pM0vm8=V=AKe2n-rPFzz+mQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1YbFLcuCLbZZvSJGPy9k0PRgWttOp-KPUW+99XSYTkQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPBPUnp61tCr5yVa36OGoqmO83hOJitnWJDyW3SihXyxy_FbYg@mail.gmail.com>
<20120229232029.GA6073@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<20120229234558.GA6573@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CAPBPUno7EaUeQHEb6jfR77k==p5_Q5Es8dGQiwmQW+DPSttDuA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPBPUnpj=u53Nvvvu54e2X462gPshLQ5rUcPosxvoNAXp6uN8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:27:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgS2NMcdpyomSE76O8EuHV8Zw7NuvSjBuk8S+BSKX5ry=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Ben Reeves <support@pi.uk.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1S36z9-0001ls-3s
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:28:05 -0000
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Ben Reeves <support@pi.uk.com> wrote:
> One more thing to add. The implementation in the reference patch fixes
> the blockchain forking issue however by still allowing spent coinbases
> to be disconnected patched clients are still vulnerable to blockchain
> corruption. While not an immediate issue it would mean
> LoadBlockIndex() would error on restart and could cause problems for
> new clients during the initial blockchain download.
I am not following you here, can you explain what you're thinking?
> Is there a reason not to disallow duplicate coinbases entirely?
Because this would make it impossible for nodes to prune the vaules.
They'd all forever have to keep a set of all the coinbase hashes in
order to perform the test. The height-in-coinbase BIP will make
duplicates effectively impossible to create, which is a much more
clean behavior.
|
