[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Addressing Segwit's anyone-can-spend "issue" with the hard fork?

CryptAxe cryptaxe at gmail.com
Mon Jul 10 19:09:37 UTC 2017


Here is the ~2M bounty right here:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/address/3MidrAnQ9w1YK6pBqMv7cw5bGLDvPRznph

In the same way that I consider the millions of untouched early mined
bitcoins (possibly generated by Satoshi) to be a bounty for QC and other
potential but unlikely attacks you can consider these 40,000 litecoin
to be a bounty to actually spend a segwit output without the key. Nobody
has stolen them which shows either extreme restraint on the part of
blackhats turning down a huge reward (unlikely) or it demonstrates
in an objective way that the outputs are not able to be spent-by-anyone.
There's no better way to test it than testing it live with real money,
and it's survived that test.


On 07/10/2017 11:42 AM, Dr Adam Back via Bitcoin-segwit2x wrote:
> There's a couple of FAQ entries explaining how soft-forks work wrt to
> the confusion about anyone-can-spend.  https://segwit.org/faq/home
>
> Apparently there's an (unclaimed) $2m bounty on litecoin for anyone
> who believes they can spend segwit outputs without keys.
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Jameson Lopp via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> "anyone-can-spend" is not actually an issue. By the time SegWit2X's hard
>> fork activates, there will be 3 months of proof of work accumulated on top
>> of SegWit activation; it would be economically infeasible for miners to
>> reorganize the chain to deactivate SegWit at that point.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Oliver Petruzel via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> ALCON,
>>> I'm not privy to discussions occurring in Slack or elsewhere, so I think
>>> this list may be the most appropriate medium for the following question:
>>>
>>> Has any thought been given to addressing/fixing Segwit's anyone-can-spend
>>> issue at the time of the SegWit2x hardfork?
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely familiar with the exact mechanisms of the code that
>>> create the conditions for this issue, but it's been said by many that the
>>> issue is a byproduct of the softfork implementation, and that it could be
>>> resolved if SegWit were implemented as a hardfork instead.
>>>
>>> Is that true? Is it possible to rework the SegWit code such that the
>>> anyone-can-spend issue is permanently resolved with the SegWit2x hardfork?
>>>
>>> I think doing so would go a very long way in garnering additional support
>>> throughout the dev and user communities, so it's worth considering.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> V/r,
>>> Oliver Petruzel
>>> Owner, Procryptic Inc.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x



More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list