Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f174.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <7C80D196-AB91-44EA-B2D7-343D7214BAA8@bitsofproof.com>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE28kUQ87jWhq1p6RK1eKEuEP1ERxN_P2SS0=YsFEGAqRyMPLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2H2T2QFZceCc=YzwwiApJy7kY7FN0LoAZODGbW12SYsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7C80D196-AB91-44EA-B2D7-343D7214BAA8@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:16:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2d-jkosS1AZob8-QEpb1mhFEgVHV65QZ0u+vXysiJ2bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
Precedence: list

--047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> You can not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent,
> as it could be the world as observed by some.
>

Fraudulent in what sense?

If you mean the legal term, then you'd use the legal "beyond reasonable
doubt" test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes
later once? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500
times in a row? Probably not a fluke.

If you mean under a technical definition then I think Tom Harding has been
researching this topic, though I've only kept half an eye on it. I guess
it's some statistical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure
good incentives with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the
block chain algorithm already works w.r.t orphans.

--047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>You can=
 not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent, as it cou=
ld be the world as observed by some.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
><div>Fraudulent in what sense?</div><div><br></div><div>If you mean the le=
gal term, then you&#39;d use the legal &quot;beyond reasonable doubt&quot; =
test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes later o=
nce? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500 times in a =
row? Probably not a fluke.</div><div><br></div><div>If you mean under a tec=
hnical definition then I think Tom Harding has been researching this topic,=
 though I&#39;ve only kept half an eye on it. I guess it&#39;s some statist=
ical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure good incentives =
with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the block chain alg=
orithm already works w.r.t orphans.</div></div></div></div>

--047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1--