Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6SYv-0006il-Hn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:52:37 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.170; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6SYu-0008Ul-Kg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:52:37 +0000 Received: by pdbci14 with SMTP id ci14so55615457pdb.2 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.65.43 with SMTP id u11mr45726191pbs.118.1434844350988; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f15sm12941323pdk.45.2015.06.20.16.52.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D46EDC58-649C-4842-875C-004E0D41C28D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: <17636B68-7A3A-4412-96D7-38CCA7C44E27@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:52:26 -0700 Message-Id: <3A30BB58-0234-4C2D-80CA-3CD540EAECA1@gmail.com> References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <20150619151127.GA11263@savin.petertodd.org> <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> <17636B68-7A3A-4412-96D7-38CCA7C44E27@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) 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 (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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 0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z6SYu-0008Ul-Kg Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Justus Ranvier Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:52:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D46EDC58-649C-4842-875C-004E0D41C28D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I should also add that I think many in this space believe they have = assessed the risk as acceptable but haven=E2=80=99t really considered = how to cap potential losses nor made contingency plans for when the = inevitable attacks *do* come. - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Eric Lombrozo = wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n = wrote: >>=20 >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo = wrote: >>> The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the = requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that = can come from anywhere at any time=E2=80=A6 >>=20 >> I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument >> from authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I >> think the assumptions while using the system should be: >>=20 >> "As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are >> not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest >> chain and outpace attackers." >>=20 >> I can't say for sure what was meant by "attacking the network" in = this >> context but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and >> proof-of-work-timestamped history. >> Unconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering >> unconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a >> universal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work = in >> the first place. >>=20 >> Alternative policies are NOT attacks on the network. >=20 > Just to be clear, Jorge, I wasn=E2=80=99t suggesting that unconfirmed = transactions are part of any sort of global consensus. In fact, they = very much AREN=E2=80=99T. Which is exactly why it is extremely dangerous = to accept unconfirmed transactions as final unless you clearly have = assessed the risks and it makes sense for the particular business use = case. >=20 > - Eric Lombrozo --Apple-Mail=_D46EDC58-649C-4842-875C-004E0D41C28D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVhfy6AAoJEJNAI64YFENUNyoP/1qNtGveGYQZmKkjZllX9RcN sWwt7SRv/qGtuBnbQUiD+XGs81cBXylFhLRC6KaAPQKqAgdX7qi6ik1/pUw9W0tS tvNbHE6wI8g9MB7gzZ8gpL9TDBeLyqUF+Fuf++zO0+BLsPw+MK5GupGG8m0Yx5nU UXhbkaSsQxE1iXYP6NeCEFJLyfqnBdrVWJL+xz+CePHE3k++LmgnYspQo3ZF0yq4 T7G0VaZpEZsciv3Pfm75YoCFozr7x9bS4jkRAHd8yXzjYG8YpPu2SjQZzycNQn4T RP+CckxeS1VXM8kNUUM6vW+AWJ6J11sXwrmcNf2euQNzyuS844iUlDsRhmJRjPW2 b2CeLq14toaWtsdrzS44bgJLC0IxUjQt/ODTrQAsBHTkm1bij4daFlV83n4zbUqU plfTUlJ5jTl97Urfe35lqzyryqw8BBGJiKYt5eJ6yR/sDxi/2sid/3JXhVJDk22F AAzUJjoN7w56BT49wz61SQglGbhP6C14aXudqVWxfMQOChzSAqE7ML/nSzCjt/eM mlsO5x+l5b9m2zWR/wrbc5AAW6s7GLcrLrJgPi9qR5MzsNHngYEaK+EBBC4TuV3d t0B7mDPHJwuwoLSHTROOqmKxqOOuy0TZnd27D7pFadRL1SdM2HhY4Gsk1RS8+qW/ zraopSJjTt/ObxJV01Io =g3jD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D46EDC58-649C-4842-875C-004E0D41C28D--