diff options
| author | Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> | 2015-02-15 14:51:54 -0600 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-02-15 21:32:19 +0000 |
| commit | 3206c187f0771a6a1e830a9cb77e9f13b1fe95a9 (patch) | |
| tree | d629f45237241b76c672c31b65be1c2cece46f95 | |
| parent | fdcf46492695e8b9635a244f6ecc69f7e6caa529 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-3206c187f0771a6a1e830a9cb77e9f13b1fe95a9.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-3206c187f0771a6a1e830a9cb77e9f13b1fe95a9.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
| -rw-r--r-- | 5f/90cbd21c020fc52f957d4d5b05ededc9a886db | 83 |
1 files changed, 83 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5f/90cbd21c020fc52f957d4d5b05ededc9a886db b/5f/90cbd21c020fc52f957d4d5b05ededc9a886db new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4247cc645 --- /dev/null +++ b/5f/90cbd21c020fc52f957d4d5b05ededc9a886db @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +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 <hozer@grid.coop>) id 1YN6nb-0003A4-5e + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:32:19 +0000 +X-ACL-Warn: +Received: from nl.grid.coop ([50.7.166.116]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + id 1YN6na-0000xj-6V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:32:19 +0000 +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) + by nl.grid.coop with local; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 14:51:54 -0600 + id 00000000000613CD.0000000054E106EA.000029B4 +Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 14:51:54 -0600 +From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> +To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> +Message-ID: <20150215205154.GQ14804@nl.grid.coop> +References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> + <7C171F0B-1EF8-4542-8E18-187B2E94DF14@bitsofproof.com> + <20150212074509.GC4254@savin.petertodd.org> + <8BFAFE6A-F85B-4B89-98A0-CBBCAA67B30B@bitsofproof.com> +Mime-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <8BFAFE6A-F85B-4B89-98A0-CBBCAA67B30B@bitsofproof.com> +User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) +X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain +X-Headers-End: 1YN6na-0000xj-6V +Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 +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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:32:19 -0000 + +On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: +> +> +> On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> wrote: +> > Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool contents? +> +> +> +> Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user service. +> In absence of better alternative, the interfaces used by a proprietary extension are usually the same as in P2P consensus. +> +> POW is used to figure the longest chain and until now broadcasted transactions were assumed the one and only. +> These simple rules ensure a consensus between the proprietary stack and the border router, and that is the consensus I referred to. +> + +If a proprietary stack has problems with replace-by-fee then it's probably +succeptible to malicious attack because an attacker could just broadcast +one transaction to the network and then replace it when they are able to +mine a block themselves. + +> +> On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: +> > IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the +> > one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must +> > go. +> +> +> You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting +> double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic . +> + + + + |