summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorTier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>2015-07-02 14:13:35 +0100
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-07-02 13:13:37 +0000
commit7588742b0501c1ec8d71092424562de78139198b (patch)
tree4fd343e874ed6901c31b291186fc954ee679468f
parent041de54ba71cbcb3977ccb70939779c8708b6570 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-7588742b0501c1ec8d71092424562de78139198b.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-7588742b0501c1ec8d71092424562de78139198b.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] REQ BIP # / Discuss - Sweep incoming unconfirmed transactions with a bounty.
-rw-r--r--5d/1737e9ac22a42876b5769bb62051eee51a62b3185
1 files changed, 185 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5d/1737e9ac22a42876b5769bb62051eee51a62b3 b/5d/1737e9ac22a42876b5769bb62051eee51a62b3
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..81e62159b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/5d/1737e9ac22a42876b5769bb62051eee51a62b3
@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F02FBCC
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:13:37 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com (mail-qk0-f180.google.com
+ [209.85.220.180])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DF6C1C3
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:13:36 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by qkbp125 with SMTP id p125so51125934qkb.2
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 02 Jul 2015 06:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
+ h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
+ :content-type; bh=09Oc1+6Ocq+rNo4j8k9is9alhPY7Nk8mKhS333Cyx/w=;
+ b=DIsEEHiTNrbjiIokg3lnlm6EFDpZdM7/hGSU8/KWmD2kTAOQPb+twYSeSTHeT7s0XG
+ qEyPrBWlaL7zv7jWV8wvgNT/Ca14kVdTihEdDC95ZxXeeK2rgyiMuA2oImwtEiMg7JJf
+ npND7O8/gPKLhQePqUAA3zFZovXgsLeFytNlDKR7JRgLuL4ICdA/cs1wSlhuXDEsWXqZ
+ v0A/1yWP0BMTXFH4FZPIrV7u0j5x76l25s2Nq1rdlc+d9peOJ8jPeWss/MyGI1/KRl2X
+ dktVU4+azhh6KgiLqfDwm7888+j+nWzOKCmrbwhcAAAhVeSJ+fCIT/DOE/1Cl+0GAVHm
+ PfZg==
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Received: by 10.140.237.147 with SMTP id i141mr44853819qhc.25.1435842815542;
+ Thu, 02 Jul 2015 06:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 06:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
+In-Reply-To: <1854821.ToCRAf8eXU@crushinator>
+References: <CAAUFj10D37A1kfqFNPWz6bOMYSFXQbecJ+RxxOnw6HtwUg70mg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAOG=w-swH-_cD00Xy5yCN7LebeQSh-oG0gXFM6LxNSDwQZ64Tw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <1854821.ToCRAf8eXU@crushinator>
+Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 14:13:35 +0100
+Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUqxjnRjWPtSzbSFoxPNGoPQyQ8G=e-yegm9JAZ+SzyBw@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
+Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135ad28f94af50519e43460
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
+ DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,
+ RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
+ smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] REQ BIP # / Discuss - Sweep incoming unconfirmed
+ transactions with a bounty.
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:13:37 -0000
+
+--001a1135ad28f94af50519e43460
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+
+I wonder if that would be a viable way for payment services to pay to
+protect against double spending.
+
+If the payment processor was handling 1000 BTC every block and was willing
+to pay 0.1% fees, then it could create a transaction with 1BTC in fees.
+
+If an attacker tried to double spend a transaction of 0.1BTC, then even if
+he was to spend the entire transaction to fees, the payment processor would
+be able to out bid him.
+
+It kind of works like insurance. The payment processor combines lots of
+small double spend threats and protects them with a single transaction.
+
+The processor could keep sending out a larger and large transaction (with
+fee) until eventually a block is found.
+
+It requires RBF. First seen safe would be incompatible, if the double
+spender gets their transaction into the system first.
+
+A 1BTC fee transaction in nearly every block would also be a boost for
+network security.
+
+It avoids Peter Todd's complaint that mining pools might make secret deals
+with payment services. The transaction would be public and all miners
+could include it in their block.
+
+On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
+
+> PR#1647 only addresses miner policy, though, right? I believe the BIP is
+> addressing the user-facing side of this functionality. CPFP mining policy
+> does very little good if wallets don't offer any way for users to goose up
+> incoming transactions.
+>
+>
+> On Wednesday, 1 July 2015, at 9:52 pm, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
+> > This is called child pays for parent and there is a three year old pull
+> > request implementing it:
+> >
+> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647
+> >
+> > The points regarding sweep transaction UI is out of scope for a BIP I'm
+> > afraid. I suggest talking with wallet authors, and if agreement can be
+> > found writing a pull request.
+> > On Jul 1, 2015 9:44 PM, "Dan Bryant" <dkbryant@gmail.com> wrote:
+> >
+> > > This is a process BIP request to add functionality to the Bitcoin-Core
+> > > reference implementation. If accepted, this could also add
+> > > flexibility into any future fee schedules.
+> > >
+> > > https://github.com/d4n13/bips/blob/master/bip-00nn.mediawiki
+> _______________________________________________
+> bitcoin-dev mailing list
+> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
+>
+
+--001a1135ad28f94af50519e43460
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I wonder if that would be a viable way for payme=
+nt services to pay to protect against double spending.<br><br></div>If the =
+payment processor was handling 1000 BTC every block and was willing to pay =
+0.1% fees, then it could create a transaction with 1BTC in fees.=C2=A0 <br>=
+<br></div><div>If an attacker tried to double spend a transaction of 0.1BTC=
+, then even if he was to spend the entire transaction to fees, the payment =
+processor would be able to out bid him.<br><br></div><div>It kind of works =
+like insurance.=C2=A0 The payment processor combines lots of small double s=
+pend threats and protects them with a single transaction.<br><br></div><div=
+>The processor could keep sending out a larger and large transaction (with =
+fee) until eventually a block is found.<br><br></div><div>It requires RBF.=
+=C2=A0 First seen safe would be incompatible, if the double spender gets th=
+eir transaction into the system first.<br><br></div><div>A 1BTC fee transac=
+tion in nearly every block would also be a boost for network security.<br><=
+br></div><div>It avoids Peter Todd&#39;s complaint that mining pools might =
+make secret deals with payment services.=C2=A0 The transaction would be pub=
+lic and all miners could include it in their block.<br></div></div><div cla=
+ss=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:=
+57 AM, Matt Whitlock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bip@mattwhitlo=
+ck.name" target=3D"_blank">bip@mattwhitlock.name</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><=
+blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
+ #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">PR#1647 only addresses miner policy, though, =
+right? I believe the BIP is addressing the user-facing side of this functio=
+nality. CPFP mining policy does very little good if wallets don&#39;t offer=
+ any way for users to goose up incoming transactions.<br>
+<span class=3D"im HOEnZb"><br>
+<br>
+On Wednesday, 1 July 2015, at 9:52 pm, Mark Friedenbach wrote:<br>
+&gt; This is called child pays for parent and there is a three year old pul=
+l<br>
+&gt; request implementing it:<br>
+&gt;<br>
+&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647" rel=3D"norefe=
+rrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647</a><br=
+>
+&gt;<br>
+&gt; The points regarding sweep transaction UI is out of scope for a BIP I&=
+#39;m<br>
+&gt; afraid. I suggest talking with wallet authors, and if agreement can be=
+<br>
+&gt; found writing a pull request.<br>
+&gt; On Jul 1, 2015 9:44 PM, &quot;Dan Bryant&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:d=
+kbryant@gmail.com">dkbryant@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
+&gt;<br>
+&gt; &gt; This is a process BIP request to add functionality to the Bitcoin=
+-Core<br>
+&gt; &gt; reference implementation.=C2=A0 If accepted, this could also add<=
+br>
+&gt; &gt; flexibility into any future fee schedules.<br>
+&gt; &gt;<br>
+&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/d4n13/bips/blob/master/bip-00nn.med=
+iawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/d4n13/bips/=
+blob/master/bip-00nn.mediawiki</a><br>
+</span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">____________________________=
+___________________<br>
+bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
+<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
+linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
+<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
+rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
+man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
+</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
+
+--001a1135ad28f94af50519e43460--
+