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
|
Return-Path: <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702EEE7F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:52:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com (mail-ua0-f178.google.com
[209.85.217.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EA9355
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:52:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x33so565054uac.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:52:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=rosenbaum-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=pSYmIAq07xaRTWocCUkohh/oc7nD9EZCF4hdpKjSYCA=;
b=M9JYcyREMU18OLNaZ7JmdFplNWjBm6bAIyw9HOrV9k2WP0H9dn6c9mCc4fgHGUXEgk
OyByyXkiIXt6Z2Tm2yEhqks3vrP3UhLEAOQ/ECgTU73mLlK7YLsEKGl5IhVA23d70X+m
8JTkMnI/AJanctj13jteQbhubJUX/sc9fWt56D66MQtN2LQ7jJ8+apWzIvBz4Bw4H5uf
JeN7xj3qCqU3hsZp/zJpkl9cBlrIRtEl4xOIOhbAJq9+79hkc1GON4m4NTZrQBpZAymw
yYrloQiZ8K8lZmhu3QShrXwVasd60hDf+q2VPVyL02M40OXnotjEQm5t73MS0AwlX+8Q
VhGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=pSYmIAq07xaRTWocCUkohh/oc7nD9EZCF4hdpKjSYCA=;
b=GcslYQwuVxTLK+yBTc09SaK/s3+m18aZFNwmIoZOx4uY2drnM6Y4k0j+U+3pUDZY8v
uFBdE+L762iieU+S8uc9aGNLOtyZnNiNMhztJKaJkZeH5j26beK8D7+fni0UUceFIrpC
0YuhkkF6I7EpcG82kEoLak1mqNqRaDIZGjxE/5Pxx6gCGZLMOaVLhQvHe60PVH6s8Gxr
BVOiy8eJ54sl+i8WPDhDwhnKEgHsWmQS08nKwjh4MWrrJrNruihFF8XSr2Pk1Eiqppd3
hKJrwHlPrYu2VHhBQVn+1VlfXHL4/1on064N0PMIoLywiaYHeLJNrsuWAX/KL5cXvehf
SpcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfFsMjDvVjLOzMhoGUJsU9grF/8PyxqmGNtXCZ9Y+aDzBTQyXyy
Nvw5Vn3TiEJDXfFzLbsrL52VQEx6NoisFFOei2wJCvZeEm4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226Zx50JGanqjdmMEHJ7ny/18tzzLdh/tw3aG9ZUddl0d+5L6SWo4pFkB5ARGmU8ruujsXNR6Zsi/mbBMTSVkzw=
X-Received: by 10.176.91.135 with SMTP id y7mr10461113uae.46.1516981930952;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:52:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.89.234 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:52:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:52:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPswA9zXRhw6j-88VDuHtUT_vk0-biUq=FyAQEWshVvNmQ_5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:38:44 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fix or withdraw BIP120/121?
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: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:52:13 -0000
Hi
There is an inherent problem with BIP120, Proof of Payment: If there
is a soft fork, a server that verifies PoPs will accept a PoP as valid
without checking any of the new Bitcoin rules.
For example, a server will be fooled by a segwit transaction, because
the server doesn't have a witness to verify and consequently will
accept any PoP with an empty scriptSig.
Besides this problem, on-chain payments are not hot anymore and
interest, or need, for PoP as a concept seems low.
I have no good solution for the soft fork problem. Requiring all
software that uses PoP to upgrade to a new PoP specification on each
soft-fork is not good enough. Do you have any ideas on how to fix it?
If there is no good solution to the soft-fork issue, I suggest that I
withdraw BIP120 and BIP121.
As for current implementations: I know that Mycelium implements
BIP120, but I'm not sure if there is any other software, besides my
own, implementing it. If you know of any, please let me know so I can
discuss it with them.
Regards,
/Kalle
|
