Withdrawing BIP120/121 due to security issues during soft-forks#645
Merged
luke-jr merged 2 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom Feb 10, 2018
Merged
Withdrawing BIP120/121 due to security issues during soft-forks#645luke-jr merged 2 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom
luke-jr merged 2 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Since BIP121 depends on BIP120, that has to go too.