1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YMEWV-0004xe-Uq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:35:03 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.180; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YMEWU-0004cf-E6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:35:03 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id h11so11371626wiw.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:34:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.121.168 with SMTP id ll8mr4594338wjb.35.1423827296385;
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:34:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRx-UVWYji2iLqAS4nofFSHw_F8WtD+fRuw+VOe08M=LA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUQ87jWhq1p6RK1eKEuEP1ERxN_P2SS0=YsFEGAqRyMPLA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2H2T2QFZceCc=YzwwiApJy7kY7FN0LoAZODGbW12SYsw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRx-UVWYji2iLqAS4nofFSHw_F8WtD+fRuw+VOe08M=LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:34:56 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: E3ky86NGjPXFX1bAaaLJsrKGW-4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3CBAyywR9YpHRCgEhLaX2xsGLaB4iX_pTLJSajBX-8NA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01227e9e390110050ef6a0ef
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YMEWU-0004cf-E6
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:35:04 -0000
--089e01227e9e390110050ef6a0ef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> > history. Lots of miners have dropped out due to hardware obsolescence,
> yet
> > massive double spending hasn't happened.
>
> How many thousands of BTC must be stolen by miners before you'd agree
> that it has, in fact, happened?
> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321630.0)
>
Hmm. I think this is a disagreement over the term massive. I was meaning we
don't see double spending like we see carding fraud in the traditional
online payments world. We can talk about Finney attacks by linking to
specific discussions of specific events, because they are very rare, which
is why merchants generally ignore the possibility. I didn't mean the
numeric value of lost coins added up so far.
--089e01227e9e390110050ef6a0ef
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">> history. Lots of miners ha=
ve dropped out due to hardware obsolescence, yet<br>
> massive double spending hasn't happened.<br>
<br>
</span>How many thousands of BTC must be stolen by miners before you'd =
agree<br>
that it has, in fact, happened?<br>
(<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D321630.0" target=3D"_=
blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D321630.0</a>)<br></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>Hmm. I think this is a disagreement over the term m=
assive. I was meaning we don't see double spending like we see carding =
fraud in the traditional online payments world. We can talk about Finney at=
tacks by linking to specific discussions of specific events, because they a=
re very rare, which is why merchants generally ignore the possibility. I di=
dn't mean the numeric value of lost coins added up so far.</div></div><=
/div></div>
--089e01227e9e390110050ef6a0ef--
|
