diff options
author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2015-06-19 10:08:15 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-19 14:08:33 +0000 |
commit | 2d97e89ae03a508053d2a69a04737a1a1afb2c5f (patch) | |
tree | 213938692f2addc8d51c5fb58541b1ffe88319b7 | |
parent | 47656dfbc4c8cde848754fb81fa7157094d24c07 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-2d97e89ae03a508053d2a69a04737a1a1afb2c5f.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-2d97e89ae03a508053d2a69a04737a1a1afb2c5f.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
-rw-r--r-- | a9/382332a0f442e229befd6d3b9c31141287280a | 144 |
1 files changed, 144 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/a9/382332a0f442e229befd6d3b9c31141287280a b/a9/382332a0f442e229befd6d3b9c31141287280a new file mode 100644 index 000000000..685f028a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/a9/382332a0f442e229befd6d3b9c31141287280a @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Z5wy9-00068N-88 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:08:33 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org + designates 62.13.149.75 as permitted sender) + client-ip=62.13.149.75; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; + helo=outmail149075.authsmtp.net; +Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net ([62.13.149.75]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + id 1Z5wy8-0003uD-12 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:08:33 +0000 +Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) + by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5JE8M6j050294; + Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:08:22 +0100 (BST) +Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com + [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) + by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5JE8FOg044884 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); + Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:08:18 +0100 (BST) +Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:08:15 -0400 +From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +To: Adrian Macneil <adrian@coinbase.com> +Message-ID: <20150619140815.GA32470@savin.petertodd.org> +References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> + <CABsx9T1pnT=Tty3+tg+EUphLwQrWXf9EEwUOGuyNcdu=4wAqTg@mail.gmail.com> + <20150619135245.GB28875@savin.petertodd.org> + <CAMK47c_kCgb6hEUf_JePAC_tBK8aCF1W4f1guiAah-Gj_cFfSw@mail.gmail.com> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6" +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <CAMK47c_kCgb6hEUf_JePAC_tBK8aCF1W4f1guiAah-Gj_cFfSw@mail.gmail.com> +User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) +X-Server-Quench: a2bfd31e-168c-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 +X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: + http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse +X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR + aQdMdwsUEkAaAgsB AmMbWlFeUFV7WGs7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr + VklWR1pVCwQmRRl7 cxZoLU5ycwFOcHo+ ZENgXnAVDUYoIxJ+ + QxtJFGsONnphaTUa TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL + NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDMGQE QBcGVTUmBgUIQSw5 + KxEqYlABGEJZKEgq NVIqVBcSIlocBwA2 +X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 +X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) +X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 +X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own + anti-virus system. +X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record +X-Headers-End: 1Z5wy8-0003uD-12 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:08:33 -0000 + + +--IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 07:00:56AM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote: +> > +> > For instance, if Coinbase had +> > contracts with 80% of the Bitcoin hashing power to guarantee their +> > transactions would get mined, but 20% of the hashing power didn't sign +> > up, then the only way to guarantee their transactions could be for the +> > 80% to not build on blocks containing doublespends by the 20%. +> > +>=20 +> This seems to be more of a problem with centralized mining than zeroconf +> transactions. + +You're mistaking cause and effect: the contracts will drive +centralization of mining, as only the larger, non-anonymous, players +have the ability to enter into such contracts. + +> Speaking of, could we get a confirmation that Coinbase is, or is not, +> > one of the merchant service providers trying to get hashing power +> > contracts with mining pools for guaranteed transaction acceptance? IIRC +> > you are still an advisor to them. This is a serious concern for the +> > reasons I outlined in my post. +> > +>=20 +> We have no contracts in place or plans to do this that I am aware of. +>=20 +> However, we do rely pretty heavily on zeroconf transactions for merchant +> processing, so if any significant portion of the mining pools started +> running your unsafe RBF patch, then we would probably need to look into +> this as a way to prevent fraud. + +What happens if the mining pools who are mining double-spends aren't +doing it delibrately? Sybil attacking pools appears to have been done +before to get double-spends though, equally there are many other changes +the reduce the reliability of transaction confirmations. For instance +the higher demands on bandwidth of a higher blocksize will inevitably +reduce the syncronicity of mempools, resulting in double-spend +opportunities. Similarly many proposals to limit mempool size allow +zeroconf double-spends. + +In that case would you enter into such contracts? + +--=20 +'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org +000000000000000005a4c76d0bf088ef3e059914d6fc0335683a92b5be01b7dc + +--IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6 +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" +Content-Description: Digital signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVhCJKXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw +MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxMjFlMjg1MGM4NmE5OWM4NjcyYzkzOTZhZGViYjBhMDc1 +OWU4NWE1ZmJiODkyMmMvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 +ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfv6rwgAjIzRTRljEa55+DCJ2tDNcj8H +2jAr9zLlm4g0QhFlwI4ZYp5ryqiB+CJWiXs2LEgDSwbGnPcWRPM2RDCPyr9J0G4x +NAdpGgrN22lR/BFThnNqOrVktMW0FTYba3bhDEiMpGX5+aAoKnqZHsojR5uuLzgl +c4+OS/DVsPjrJ/oXxKPeaGnMqVbrRJUftFGmXTObF9LmZIRP7l38Yc5FbwQ9bMMQ +XcmL0hWOmWwcEJ/RQX1gIkaPQh24UxFc/ryJX0BPl5NW5+qLuw+rCTf3H/CrNsLL ++Pma+jDJlQNLUa9SBvj1DlEzi7mqpmTkk5JDSvdRitAV0AH5A4U/PJQi8WgRAg== +=+bMm +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6-- + + |