Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.218.41 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.41; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f41.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <15ea02cb53046dbe363d5d4876becb6d@riseup.net>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com>
	<812d8353e66637ec182da31bc0a9aac1@riseup.net>
	<1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator>
	<15ea02cb53046dbe363d5d4876becb6d@riseup.net>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:40:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0PXrtVAo4g2HnqzU+nYK_Eo6waUvryZ9-pbDdvU5LOyNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Precedence: list

--047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, <justusranvier@riseup.net> wrote:

> If we have ECDSA proof that an entity intentionally made and publicly
> announced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular
> Bitcoins under their control, then why shouldn't that be assumed to be a
> fraud attempt unless shown otherwise?
>

Making multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of
various refund contract protocols.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

--047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM,  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:justusranvier@riseup.net" target=3D"_blank">justusranvier@r=
iseup.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If we have ECDSA proof that an=
 entity intentionally made and publicly<br>
announced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular<br>
Bitcoins under their control, then why shouldn&#39;t that be assumed to be =
a<br>
fraud attempt unless shown otherwise?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>M=
aking multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of vario=
us refund contract protocols.=C2=A0</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open sou=
rce evangelist<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpa=
y.com/" target=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></div>
</div></div>

--047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61--