diff options
| author | joliver <joliver@airmail.cc> | 2015-02-22 15:18:05 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-02-22 15:18:14 +0000 |
| commit | 88e7c4b164db2d95797f4bf2c10d4c79b383282d (patch) | |
| tree | 5cb2c711731babc77dec02724277d14a05398ff4 | |
| parent | f602838abd33f29f4fa9f0e210c07da6e21a2383 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-88e7c4b164db2d95797f4bf2c10d4c79b383282d.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-88e7c4b164db2d95797f4bf2c10d4c79b383282d.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)
| -rw-r--r-- | 6c/421d4c33379242aa68030b5771ca5c350e3114 | 93 |
1 files changed, 93 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/6c/421d4c33379242aa68030b5771ca5c350e3114 b/6c/421d4c33379242aa68030b5771ca5c350e3114 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..73f149985 --- /dev/null +++ b/6c/421d4c33379242aa68030b5771ca5c350e3114 @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <joliver@airmail.cc>) id 1YPYIQ-0001PR-AN + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of airmail.cc + designates 75.102.27.230 as permitted sender) + client-ip=75.102.27.230; envelope-from=joliver@airmail.cc; + helo=cock.li; +Received: from cock.li ([75.102.27.230]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YPYIN-0002zL-Ne + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 +0000 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chen.cock.li +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,NO_RECEIVED, + NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; + format=flowed +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:05 +0000 +From: joliver@airmail.cc +To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +In-Reply-To: <20150222143353.GA32621@savin.petertodd.org> +References: <CALqxMTGBVdMX2RkuXNhkJ38XRM6DgAj+OmQTfHWuVF=emD-06Q@mail.gmail.com> + <20150222123428.GA6570@savin.petertodd.org> + <CALqxMTHuD1WuV_mVeSD-TaFszVms=hogUTL2bNc7YgNDyhVOoQ@mail.gmail.com> + <20150222143353.GA32621@savin.petertodd.org> +Message-ID: <48c47e2a2c7916e7bf63f2219a9aeb72@airmail.cc> +X-Sender: joliver@airmail.cc +User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 +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_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record +X-Headers-End: 1YPYIN-0002zL-Ne +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes + double-spend (Re: 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 15:18:14 -0000 + +On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote: +> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: +>> My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed +>> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical +>> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something +>> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the +>> current weaker 0-conf transactions. +>> +>> If I understand this is also your own motivation. +> +> Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective +> tools +> to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their +> effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few +> people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore. + +You mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while +working for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to +sell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this. + +I and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out +that they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success +rates. + +> As for the +> remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my +> consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person +> trading for instance. + +A "team" + +You mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized +LocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions. + + + |