Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jan.moller@gmail.com>) id 1WcooM-0006rW-4O
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:29:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.54 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.54; envelope-from=jan.moller@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qg0-f54.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WcooK-0001R0-AH
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:29:30 +0000
Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z60so425580qgd.13
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.66.133 with SMTP id n5mr54081936qci.0.1398227362851;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.24.208 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140422213128.GB2578@savin>
References: <20140422213128.GB2578@savin>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:29:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CABh=4qMk5RbM9pErQd9EsabWo8uP9u82yZOXk87AxdmAPq8H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jan_M=C3=B8ller?= <jan.moller@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
	(jan.moller[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [209.85.192.54 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-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
X-Headers-End: 1WcooK-0001R0-AH
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double-spending unconfirmed transactions
 is a lot easier than most people realise
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jan.moller@gmail.com
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:29:30 -0000

--001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>Of course, this is an especially difficult case, as you must send the
>double-spend after the original transaction - normally just sending a
>non-standard tx to Eligius first would suffice. Note how this defeats
>Andresen's double-spend-relay patch(3) as proposed since the
>double-spend is a non-standard transaction.

Why can't you send a non-standard tx to Eligius first in this scenario?=E2=
=80=8B
Is it because LuckyBit is connected directly to Eligius, and does Eligius
relay (not only mine) non-standard transactions?

--001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3=
33333969116211px">&gt;Of course, this is an especially difficult case, as y=
ou must send the</span><br style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:=
13.333333969116211px">
<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"=
>&gt;double-spend after the original transaction - normally just sending a<=
/span><br style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.33333396911621=
1px">
<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"=
>&gt;non-standard tx to Eligius first would suffice. Note how this defeats<=
/span><br style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.33333396911621=
1px">
<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"=
>&gt;Andresen&#39;s double-spend-relay patch(3) as proposed since the</span=
><br style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"=
>&gt;double-spend is a non-standard transaction.</span><br><br><div>Why can=
&#39;t you send a non-standard tx to Eligius first in this scenario?=E2=80=
=8B</div>
<div>Is it because LuckyBit is connected directly to=C2=A0Eligius, and does=
 Eligius relay (not only mine) non-standard transactions?</div><div><div><b=
r></div></div></div>

--001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e--