summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/f4/2e86dfbec48e8e612dcadf572ab487ac64a064
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorOleg Andreev <oleganza@gmail.com>2015-02-12 18:24:40 +0100
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-02-12 17:24:50 +0000
commitf9bdc7b036c3aeeb17623310710955217285ccb6 (patch)
tree313ab2e9668e05d216a123d13317f7cb811177b0 /f4/2e86dfbec48e8e612dcadf572ab487ac64a064
parent6bd2178ab577a1e4a67cf09c7c46f32ee4f1456e (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-f9bdc7b036c3aeeb17623310710955217285ccb6.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-f9bdc7b036c3aeeb17623310710955217285ccb6.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
Diffstat (limited to 'f4/2e86dfbec48e8e612dcadf572ab487ac64a064')
-rw-r--r--f4/2e86dfbec48e8e612dcadf572ab487ac64a064183
1 files changed, 183 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/f4/2e86dfbec48e8e612dcadf572ab487ac64a064 b/f4/2e86dfbec48e8e612dcadf572ab487ac64a064
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f46f059e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/f4/2e86dfbec48e8e612dcadf572ab487ac64a064
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <oleganza@gmail.com>) id 1YLxVS-0008DU-19
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:24:50 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=oleganza@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
+Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
+ by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1YLxVQ-0001xD-UK
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:24:50 +0000
+Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id r20so6075892wiv.2
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:24:42 -0800 (PST)
+X-Received: by 10.194.133.101 with SMTP id pb5mr10419770wjb.40.1423761882276;
+ Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:24:42 -0800 (PST)
+Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e35:8a2c:a630:28c0:1758:7e4d:9520?
+ ([2a01:e35:8a2c:a630:28c0:1758:7e4d:9520])
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hn2sm6539058wjc.5.2015.02.12.09.24.41
+ (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
+ Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:24:41 -0800 (PST)
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
+ boundary="Apple-Mail=_DD1E8954-3242-433F-AFF8-C3FBA702C621"
+Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
+From: Oleg Andreev <oleganza@gmail.com>
+In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztrzMh8=Y6SD-JV1hpTTbGB8Y2u=59bQhGtF6h3+Ei_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
+Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:24:40 +0100
+Message-Id: <356E7F6E-300A-4127-9885-2183FB1DE447@gmail.com>
+References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
+ <CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAE28kUQ87jWhq1p6RK1eKEuEP1ERxN_P2SS0=YsFEGAqRyMPLA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP2H2T2QFZceCc=YzwwiApJy7kY7FN0LoAZODGbW12SYsw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAE28kURa8g3YTPi-GHKAt4v0csxXe=QhGhV3aQcDZGSr=Lb7RQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP2hAUsRfeXUo-DLiiRmG5uJcwFuP4=o1S6Fb7ts5Ud=bw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CADJgMztrzMh8=Y6SD-JV1hpTTbGB8Y2u=59bQhGtF6h3+Ei_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
+To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
+X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
+X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
+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
+ (oleganza[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ 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: 1YLxVQ-0001xD-UK
+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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:24:50 -0000
+
+
+--Apple-Mail=_DD1E8954-3242-433F-AFF8-C3FBA702C621
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+Content-Type: text/plain;
+ charset=us-ascii
+
+
+> I think that is a misdirection on your part. The point of =
+replace-by-fee is to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable. Currently =
+people can "get away" with 0-confirms but it's only because most people =
+arent actively double spending, and when they do it is for higher value =
+targets. Double spend attacks are happening a lot more frequently than =
+is being admitted here, according to Peter from work with various =
+clients.=20
+>=20
+> Like single address reuse, people have gotten used to something which =
+is bad. Generally accepting 0-conf is also a bad idea(tm) and instant =
+confirmation solutions should be sought elsewhere. There are already =
+interesting solutions and concepts: greenaddress for example, and =
+CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY micropayment channels for example. Rather than =
+supporting and promoting risky 0-confirms, we need to spend time on =
+better alternative solutions that will work for everyone and not during =
+the honeymoon phase where attackers are fewer.
+
+Here's value-free assessment of the issue here:
+
+1. Zero-conf txs are unsafe.
+2. We'd all want to have a safer instant payments solution if possible.
+3. As a social artifact, today zeroconf txs happen to work for some =
+people in some situations.
+4. Replace-by-fee will break #3 and probably hasten development of #2.
+
+The discussion boils down to whether we should make #2 happen sooner by =
+breaking remnants of #3 sooner.
+
+I personally would rather not break anything, but work as fast as =
+possible on #2 so no matter when and how #3 becomes utterly broken, we =
+have a better solution. This implies that I also don't want to waste =
+time debating with Peter Todd and others. I want to be ready with a =
+working tool when zeroconf completely fails (with that patch or for some =
+other reasons).
+
+TL;DR: those who are against the patch are better off building a =
+decentralized clearing network rather than wasting time on debates. When =
+we have such network, we might all want this patch to be used for all =
+the reasons Peter has already outlined.
+
+
+
+--Apple-Mail=_DD1E8954-3242-433F-AFF8-C3FBA702C621
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+Content-Type: text/html;
+ charset=us-ascii
+
+<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
+charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
+-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
+class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
+class=3D""><span style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue;" class=3D"">I =
+think that is a misdirection on your part. The point of replace-by-fee =
+is to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable. Currently people can "get =
+away" with 0-confirms but it's only because most people arent actively =
+double spending, and when they do it is for higher value targets. Double =
+spend attacks</span>&nbsp;<i class=3D"" style=3D"font-family: =
+HelveticaNeue;">are</i>&nbsp;<span style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue;" =
+class=3D"">happening a lot more frequently than is being admitted here, =
+according to Peter from work with various =
+clients.&nbsp;</span></div><div class=3D""><div style=3D"font-family: =
+HelveticaNeue; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: =
+normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: =
+normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
+text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: =
+0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div=
+ style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue; font-size: 14px; font-style: =
+normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: =
+normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; =
+text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: =
+auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=3D"">Like =
+single address reuse, people have gotten used to something which is bad. =
+Generally accepting 0-conf is also a bad idea(tm) and instant =
+confirmation solutions should be sought elsewhere. There are already =
+interesting solutions and concepts: greenaddress for example, and =
+CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY micropayment channels for example. Rather than =
+supporting and promoting risky 0-confirms, we need to spend time on =
+better alternative solutions that will work for everyone and not during =
+the honeymoon phase where attackers are =
+fewer.</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""><div class=3D"">Here's=
+ value-free assessment of the issue here:</div><div class=3D""><br =
+class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">1. Zero-conf txs are unsafe.</div><div =
+class=3D"">2. We'd all want to have a safer instant payments solution if =
+possible.</div><div class=3D"">3. As a social artifact, today zeroconf =
+txs happen to work for some people in some situations.</div><div =
+class=3D"">4. Replace-by-fee will break #3 and probably hasten =
+development of #2.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
+class=3D"">The discussion boils down to whether we should make #2 happen =
+sooner by breaking remnants of #3 sooner.</div><div class=3D""><br =
+class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I personally would rather not break =
+anything, but work as fast as possible on #2 so no matter when and how =
+#3 becomes utterly broken, we have a better solution. This implies that =
+I also don't want to waste time debating with Peter Todd and others. I =
+want to be ready with a working tool when zeroconf completely fails =
+(with that patch or for some other reasons).</div><div class=3D""><br =
+class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">TL;DR: those who are against the patch =
+are better off building a decentralized clearing network rather than =
+wasting time on debates. When we have such network, we might all want =
+this patch to be used for all the reasons Peter has already =
+outlined.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
+class=3D""></div></body></html>=
+
+--Apple-Mail=_DD1E8954-3242-433F-AFF8-C3FBA702C621--
+
+
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.39.1) at 2025-07-30 12:29:43 +0000