Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f179.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:58:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3Prp6EFUdH_VDWkq508HkeFBMn+swzZ9ycAMsrOazFZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a896c3a7bfb051259a69e
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Double spending and replace by fee
Precedence: list

--047d7b3a896c3a7bfb051259a69e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I've written a couple of blog posts on replace by fee and double spending
mitigations. They sum up the last few years (!) worth of discussions on
this list and elsewhere, from my own perspective.

I make no claim to be comprehensive or unbiased but I keep being asked
about these topics so figured I'd just write up my thoughts once so I can
send links instead of answers :) And then so can anyone who happens to
agree.

(1) Replace by fee scorched earth, a counter argument:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d

This article lays out the case against RBF-SE and argues it is harmful to
Bitcoin.

(2) Double spending and how to make it harder:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/double-spending-in-bitcoin-be0f1d1e8008

This article summarises a couple of double spending incidents against
merchants and then discusses the following techniques:

   1. Risk analysis of transactions
   2. Payment channels
   3. Countersigning by a trusted third party
   4. Remote attestation
   5. ID verification
   6. Waiting for confirmations
   7. Punishment of double spending blocks

I hope the material is useful / interesting.

--047d7b3a896c3a7bfb051259a69e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;ve written a couple of blog posts on replace by fee =
and double spending mitigations. They sum up the last few years (!) worth o=
f discussions on this list and elsewhere, from my own perspective.<div><br>=
</div><div>I make no claim to be comprehensive or unbiased but I keep being=
 asked about these topics so figured I&#39;d just write up my thoughts once=
 so I can send links instead of answers :) And then so can anyone who happe=
ns to agree.<br><div><br></div><div>(1) Replace by fee scorched earth, a co=
unter argument:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://medium.com/@oct=
skyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d">https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace=
-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d</a></div></div><div><br></div><div>This article lays o=
ut the case against RBF-SE and argues it is harmful to Bitcoin.</div><div><=
br></div><div>(2) Double spending and how to make it harder:</div><div><br>=
</div><div><a href=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/double-spending-in-bit=
coin-be0f1d1e8008">https://medium.com/@octskyward/double-spending-in-bitcoi=
n-be0f1d1e8008</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>This article summarises a c=
ouple of double spending incidents against merchants and then discusses the=
 following techniques:</div><div><div><ol><li>Risk analysis of transactions=
</li><li>Payment channels</li><li>Countersigning by a trusted third party</=
li><li>Remote attestation</li><li>ID verification</li><li>Waiting for confi=
rmations</li><li>Punishment of double spending blocks</li></ol><div>I hope =
the material is useful / interesting.</div></div></div></div>

--047d7b3a896c3a7bfb051259a69e--