jl2012 [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-29 📝 Original message:Do we need to consider ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-29
📝 Original message:Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with
private key lost?

I think we need to tell people not to do this. Related discussion:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011656.html


Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-29 00:35 寫到:
> Occured to me that this hasn't been mentioned before...
>
> We can trivially fix the quadratic CHECK(MULTI)SIG execution time issue
> by soft-forking in a limitation on just SignatureHash() to only return
> true if the tx size is <100KB. (or whatever limit makes sense)
>
> This fix has the advantage over schemes that limit all txs, or try to
> count sigops, of being trivial to implement, while still allowing for a
> future CHECKSIG2 soft-fork that properly fixes the quadratic hashing
> issue; >100KB txs would still be technically allowed, it's just that
> (for now) there'd be no way for them to spend coins that are
> cryptographically secured.
>
> For example, if we had an issue with a major miner exploiting
> slow-to-propagate blocks(1) to harm their competitors, this simple fix
> could be deployed as a soft-fork in a matter of days, stopping the
> attack quickly.
>
> 1)
> www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net/msg03200.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev