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

Oliver Petruzel opetruzel at gmail.com
Mon Jul 10 20:06:28 UTC 2017


I appreciate all of the feedback!  If the consensus is that it's simply not
worth the effort given the very low risk factor, then I completely
understand.

On a somewhat related note (but not really), has there been any thought
given to completely eliminating the MaxBaseBlockSize variable in a similar
fashion to Greg's recent PR to Core? Doing so may remove some
kludge/confusion from any future softforks that modify/tweak the discount
and efficient use of the 8MB blockspace.

(ie. reducing scale factor to 2, thus allowing for 4MB for legacy and
non-witness data instead of 2MB, etc)

Greg's PR:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10618

Oliver

On Jul 10, 2017 3:40 PM, "Peter Todd" <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:50:20PM -0400, Oliver Petruzel via
> Bitcoin-segwit2x 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?
>
> In addition to everyone elses comments, I'll point out that UASF's
> absolutely
> eliminate this theoretical problem.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170710/81e54124/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list