summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>2012-02-28 21:24:15 +0100
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2012-02-28 20:42:16 +0000
commitf81478ee0b01056c2025eafece3d392ec372a169 (patch)
treec62dfc99e28ac2f47e215637be8a6d093245fbdc
parent434335bbdca654feb16cb32d217b726117be692d (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-f81478ee0b01056c2025eafece3d392ec372a169.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-f81478ee0b01056c2025eafece3d392ec372a169.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability
-rw-r--r--8c/2e5f436929629c08bcb94be7438a21fa67fd9677
1 files changed, 77 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/8c/2e5f436929629c08bcb94be7438a21fa67fd96 b/8c/2e5f436929629c08bcb94be7438a21fa67fd96
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b848e6c3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/8c/2e5f436929629c08bcb94be7438a21fa67fd96
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <pw@vps7135.xlshosting.net>) id 1S2TsG-0004pa-Sn
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:16 +0000
+X-ACL-Warn:
+Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41])
+ by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ id 1S2TsF-0006lD-Og for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:16 +0000
+Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
+ id 7ABEF60DA2; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:24:15 +0100 (CET)
+Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:24:15 +0100
+From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
+To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
+Message-ID: <20120228202414.GA16255@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
+References: <CAPg+sBhb+gYMwp1OJuCHYt5=BU63=YBWOFaLLthHBkN_U-scaA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <201202281323.02976.luke@dashjr.org>
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
+Content-Disposition: inline
+In-Reply-To: <201202281323.02976.luke@dashjr.org>
+X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
+User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
+X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
+ 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
+ (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
+ 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is
+ CUSTOM_MED
+ -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
+ domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit,
+ and not from a mailing list
+X-Headers-End: 1S2TsF-0006lD-Og
+Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability
+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: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:17 -0000
+
+On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:23:01PM -0500, Luke-Jr wrote:
+> Has it been verified to make even rocconor's complicated transaction-based
+> version impossible?
+
+Yes, he tried it on testnet against a patched node.
+
+> > The purpose of this mail is asking for support for adding this rule to
+> > the protocol rules. If there is consensus this rule is the solution, I
+> > hope pools and miners can agree to update their nodes without lengthy
+> > coinbase-flagging procedure that would only delay a solution. So, who
+> > is in favor?
+>
+> Can we do this in two steps? First, prefer blocks which don't break the rule;
+> once 55%+ are confirmed to have upgraded, then it is safe to treat it as a
+> hard rule.
+
+I prefer to avoid this if possible, as it increases the size of the patch
+significantly. In particular, it would require the discouragement-system to
+be backported to whatever versions pools are running. The current proposal
+only requires adding 6 lines of code.
+
+--
+Pieter
+
+
+