summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorEric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>2015-02-22 03:41:26 -0800
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-02-22 11:41:34 +0000
commit4d29970720dff9ced89555ed55d0623649cee91d (patch)
treedea9de7ae542b7f1e1253bde70882eb55bd97a60
parent4e5ab5d3d8975f1d9b45f9be368c21618ae284cd (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-4d29970720dff9ced89555ed55d0623649cee91d.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-4d29970720dff9ced89555ed55d0623649cee91d.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
-rw-r--r--fe/0d820e90f507b5558ca0c28e034739e26a947e231
1 files changed, 231 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/fe/0d820e90f507b5558ca0c28e034739e26a947e b/fe/0d820e90f507b5558ca0c28e034739e26a947e
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..083fd3205
--- /dev/null
+++ b/fe/0d820e90f507b5558ca0c28e034739e26a947e
@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+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 <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1YPUuk-00086V-8v
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:41:34 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.217.175 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.217.175; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-lb0-f175.google.com;
+Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com ([209.85.217.175])
+ by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1YPUui-00021s-P8
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:41:34 +0000
+Received: by lbdu14 with SMTP id u14so13738942lbd.1
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:41:26 -0800 (PST)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Received: by 10.112.162.42 with SMTP id xx10mr5464574lbb.6.1424605286423;
+ Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:41:26 -0800 (PST)
+Received: by 10.112.201.67 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:41:26 -0800 (PST)
+Received: by 10.112.201.67 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:41:26 -0800 (PST)
+In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0ObR32wg7TEJ2XHgZ=9=Z+yFsXjF3JCz+4d5mdp1=xu4Q@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
+ <CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAJHLa0PkzG44JpuQoHVLUU8SR55LaJf5AwG=a7AjK2u7TAveOQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <20150215212512.GR14804@nl.grid.coop> <54E11248.6090401@gmail.com>
+ <20150219085604.GT14804@nl.grid.coop>
+ <CABm2gDorEFNzzHH2bxpo6miv1H0RUhL9uAYX6gg2aW0wB1QDbw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAOG=w-uJFobZtkd8OoPnOJC3uqCOwjsqyfNWJTg3j3sJQn+wXQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAJHLa0M4Tc7kiQVNmBfMBvSqFyrmHXdaNh7mF+crAdME5FUWHg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CABm2gDpMagWHsBn1t_oLO2bESgD2NUpefYw-gePFaBCNmpXviQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAJHLa0ObR32wg7TEJ2XHgZ=9=Z+yFsXjF3JCz+4d5mdp1=xu4Q@mail.gmail.com>
+Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:41:26 -0800
+Message-ID: <CABr1YTcr9C4uoXFfTJ6BEGHaw1a3dV_J=SE=fZbbpZRdTtD8tw@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
+To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112d1660ae2dd050fabc4fb
+X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+)
+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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
+ (elombrozo[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ 1.9 FUZZY_AMBIEN BODY: Attempt to obfuscate words in spam
+ 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
+ author's domain
+ 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
+ not necessarily valid
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
+X-Headers-End: 1YPUui-00021s-P8
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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, 22 Feb 2015 11:41:34 -0000
+
+--089e0112d1660ae2dd050fabc4fb
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+It seems to me we're confusing two completely different motivations for
+double-spending. One is the ability to replace a fee, the other is the
+ability to replace outputs.
+
+If the double-spend were to merely add or remove inputs (but keep at least
+one input in common, of course), it seems fairly safe to assume it's the
+former, a genuine fee replacement. Even allowing for things like coinjoin,
+none of the payees would really care either way.
+
+Conversely, if at least one of the inputs were kept but none of the outputs
+were, we can be confident it's the the latter.
+
+It is possible to build a wallet that always does the former when doing fee
+replacement by using another transaction to create an output with exactly
+the additional desired fee.
+
+If we can clearly distinguish these two cases then the fee replacement case
+can be handled by relaying both and letting miners pick one or the other
+while the output replacement case could be handled by rewarding everything
+to a miner (essentially all outputs are voided...made unredeemable...and
+all inputs are added to coinbase) if the miner includes the two conflicting
+transactions in the same block.
+
+Wouldn't this essentially solve the problem?
+
+- Eric Lombrozo
+On Feb 21, 2015 8:09 PM, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
+
+> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wro=
+te:
+> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
+> wrote:
+> >> This isn't some theoretical exercise. Like it or not many use
+> >> insecure 0-conf transactions for rapid payments. Deploying something
+> >> that makes 0-conf transactions unusable would have a wide, negative
+> >> impact on present day bitcoin payments, thus "scorched earth"
+>
+> > And maybe by maintaining first seen policies we're harming the system
+> > in the long term by encouraging people to widely deploy systems based
+> > on extremely weak assumptions.
+>
+> Lacking a coded, reviewed alternative, that's only a platitude.
+> Widely used 0-conf payments are where we're at today. Simply ceasing
+> the "maintaining [of] first seen policies" alone is simply not a
+> realistic option. The negative impact to today's userbase would be
+> huge.
+>
+> Instant payments need a security upgrade, yes.
+>
+> --
+> Jeff Garzik
+> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
+> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
+>
+>
+> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
+-----
+> Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
+> from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
+> with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
+> Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
+>
+> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D190641631&iu=3D/4140/ostg=
+.clktrk
+> _______________________________________________
+> Bitcoin-development mailing list
+> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
+>
+
+--089e0112d1660ae2dd050fabc4fb
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<p dir=3D"ltr">It seems to me we&#39;re confusing two completely different =
+motivations for double-spending. One is the ability to replace a fee, the o=
+ther is the ability to replace outputs.</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">If the double-spend were to merely add or remove inputs (but=
+ keep at least one input in common, of course), it seems fairly safe to ass=
+ume it&#39;s the former, a genuine fee replacement. Even allowing for thing=
+s like coinjoin, none of the payees would really care either way.</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">Conversely, if at least one of the inputs were kept but none=
+ of the outputs were, we can be confident it&#39;s the the latter.</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">It is possible to build a wallet that always does the former=
+ when doing fee replacement by using another transaction to create an outpu=
+t with exactly the additional desired fee.</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">If we can clearly distinguish these two cases then the fee r=
+eplacement case can be handled by relaying both and letting miners pick one=
+ or the other while the output replacement case could be handled by rewardi=
+ng everything to a miner (essentially all outputs are voided...made unredee=
+mable...and all inputs are added to coinbase) if the miner includes the two=
+ conflicting transactions in the same block.</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">Wouldn&#39;t this essentially solve the problem?</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">- Eric Lombrozo</p>
+<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 21, 2015 8:09 PM, &quot;Jeff Garzik&quot;=
+ &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>&gt; wrote=
+:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
+:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Sat, Feb 21, 20=
+15 at 10:25 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n &lt;jtimon@jtimon.cc&gt; wrote:<br>
+&gt; On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jg=
+arzik@bitpay.com">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
+&gt;&gt; This isn&#39;t some theoretical exercise.=C2=A0 Like it or not man=
+y use<br>
+&gt;&gt; insecure 0-conf transactions for rapid payments.=C2=A0 Deploying s=
+omething<br>
+&gt;&gt; that makes 0-conf transactions unusable would have a wide, negativ=
+e<br>
+&gt;&gt; impact on present day bitcoin payments, thus &quot;scorched earth&=
+quot;<br>
+<br>
+&gt; And maybe by maintaining first seen policies we&#39;re harming the sys=
+tem<br>
+&gt; in the long term by encouraging people to widely deploy systems based<=
+br>
+&gt; on extremely weak assumptions.<br>
+<br>
+Lacking a coded, reviewed alternative, that&#39;s only a platitude.<br>
+Widely used 0-conf payments are where we&#39;re at today.=C2=A0 Simply ceas=
+ing<br>
+the &quot;maintaining [of] first seen policies&quot; alone is simply not a<=
+br>
+realistic option.=C2=A0 The negative impact to today&#39;s userbase would b=
+e<br>
+huge.<br>
+<br>
+Instant payments need a security upgrade, yes.<br>
+<br>
+--<br>
+Jeff Garzik<br>
+Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<br>
+BitPay, Inc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D"=
+_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a><br>
+<br>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
+---<br>
+Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server<br>
+from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards<br=
+>
+with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration &amp; mo=
+re<br>
+Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE<br=
+>
+<a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D190641631&amp;iu=
+=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam=
+pad/clk?id=3D190641631&amp;iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>
+_______________________________________________<br>
+Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
+<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
+pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
+<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
+" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
+velopment</a><br>
+</blockquote></div>
+
+--089e0112d1660ae2dd050fabc4fb--
+
+