Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.95 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.95; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149095.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:37:14 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Adrian Macneil <adrian@coinbase.com>
Message-ID: <20150421113714.GA3455@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CANEZrP3Prp6EFUdH_VDWkq508HkeFBMn+swzZ9ycAMsrOazFZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FEB90DA4-2BF3-460F-8F35-9BCE929A2A31@petertodd.org>
	<C92CBBFE-A967-457B-B356-AF85F7BE8936@coinbase.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C92CBBFE-A967-457B-B356-AF85F7BE8936@coinbase.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double spending and replace by fee
Precedence: list


--HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:28:08PM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote:
> Fwiw, Coinbase relies on the current first-seen mempool behaviour. Wide a=
doption of RBF (without a suitable replacement available) would make it ext=
remely difficult to pitch bitcoin as a viable alternative to credit cards p=
ayments to large merchants.

Some questions:

1) Are you contractually obliged to accept zeroconf transactions with
   existing customers?

I keep hearing rumors of this, but would like some confirmation. In
particular, it would be good to know if you have the option of turning
zeroconf off at all, contractually speaking.


2) What are your double-spend losses to date?

3) Are you actively marketing zeroconf guarantees to new customers?

You're API is a bit unclear as to what exactly those guarantees are;
looks like they only apply if a merchant has "convert to fiat" turned
on.


4) What are your short, medium, and long term plans to move away from
   dependency on "first-seen" mempool policy?

e.g. hub-and-spoke payment channels, Lightning network, off-chain, etc.


5) What is your plan for new Bitcoin Core releases that break zeroconf
   via changed tx acceptance rules?

Basically every release we've ever made has added a zeroconf exploit due
to different tx acceptance rules. (e.g. my 95% success rate last summer)


6) What are your plans for Bitcoin Core releases that fundementally
   break zeroconf?

For instance changes like limiting the mempool size create zeroconf
vulnerabilities that can't be avoided in many situations. Yet they may
also be unavoidably needed for, for instance, DoS protection. Will you
oppose these improvements?


7) If a mining pool adopts adopted policy that broke zeroconf, e.g.
   replace-by-fee, would you take any action?

8) Would you take legal action against a mining pool for adopting
   replace-by-fee publicly?

9) Would you take action against a mining pool who is mining
   double-spends without explanation?

e.g. one that claims not to be running non-Bitcoin Core policy, but
keeps on mining double-spends.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000089abd68efc18c03d2a294295f3706a13966613a3ff3b390

--HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=lNZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV--