Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.195 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.195;
	envelope-from=dennis.jm.sullivan@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f195.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:38:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CANMKXkMSDQHWFOR+SzZW15axjXtZVD9-tsO4+e+XDYQDNBuX5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dennis Sullivan <dennis.jm.sullivan@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2521a11e352051197be14
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Are Instant Confirmations safe?
Precedence: list

--e89a8ff2521a11e352051197be14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hello. This is my first time posting to this list. I wanted to ask your
opinions on something relating to confirmation times.

I recently read about a "transaction locking" proposal which claims to make
it possible to accept 0-conf transactions with guarantee they will get
mined. This seems rather dubious to me, because if there was merit to the
system, I would have already expected to see discussion on this list
regarding it.

The scheme operates as follows:

As implemented into Darkcoin, an InstantX transaction is broadcast spending
certain outputs. Certain nodes determined deterministically will sign a
message which is relayed across the network locking this tx in mempool such
it's inputs cannot be double spent. All nodes are instructed to reject any
conflicting transactions and flush out any existing txs in the mempool that
conflict with this "locked" tx. From this point onwards, the network will
refuse to relay double spends and will also reject blocks that contain a
conflicting tx thus forcing miners to play ball.

The idea is once a transaction receives a "consensus lock" across nodes in
the mempool, the tx will eventually get mined as there is no way it can be
double spent and no way a miner can mine a double spend of the consensus
locked transaction. At the very least, this seems like it could be turned
in on itself to fork the network because of the ability to cause blocks to
be rejected. I am sure there is an attack vector there somewhere.

A full explanation is published in this paper:
https://www.darkcoin.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/InstantTX.pdf

Dennis

--e89a8ff2521a11e352051197be14
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hello. This is my first time posting to this list. I =
wanted to ask your opinions on something relating to confirmation times.</d=
iv><div><br></div>I recently read about a &quot;transaction locking&quot; p=
roposal which claims to make it possible to accept 0-conf transactions with=
 guarantee they will get mined. This seems rather dubious to me, because if=
 there was merit to the system, I would have already expected to see discus=
sion on this list regarding it.<div><br>The scheme operates as follows:</di=
v><div><br></div><div>As implemented into Darkcoin, an InstantX transaction=
 is broadcast spending certain outputs. Certain nodes determined determinis=
tically will=C2=A0sign a message which is relayed across the network lockin=
g this tx in mempool such it&#39;s inputs cannot be double spent. All nodes=
 are instructed to reject any conflicting transactions and flush out any ex=
isting txs in the mempool that conflict with this &quot;locked&quot; tx. Fr=
om this point onwards, the network will refuse to relay double spends and w=
ill also reject blocks that contain a conflicting tx thus forcing miners to=
 play ball.</div><div><br></div><div>The idea is once a transaction receive=
s a &quot;consensus lock&quot; across nodes in the mempool, the tx will eve=
ntually get mined as there is no way it can be double spent and no way a mi=
ner can mine a double spend of the consensus locked transaction. At the ver=
y least, this seems like it could be turned in on itself to fork the networ=
k because of the ability to cause blocks to be rejected. I am sure there is=
 an attack vector there somewhere.</div><div><br></div><div>A full explanat=
ion is published in this paper:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.darkcoin.io/wp-=
content/uploads/2014/09/InstantTX.pdf">https://www.darkcoin.io/wp-content/u=
ploads/2014/09/InstantTX.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>Dennis</div><div>=
<br></div></div>

--e89a8ff2521a11e352051197be14--