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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Y9Za0-0002UM-RW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:26:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y9ZZz-00028u-Vt
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:26:20 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so14898132iec.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:26:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.168.18 with SMTP id r18mr14810649ioe.76.1420809974701;
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:26:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.16.30 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:26:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0ZabL2S=UhB2u7en2AfrckPk5CQe0YN-i4eDXQK-LF6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGNXQMSSCtgiyFEGHS2ufuc-RZcAtpEJyFpQMDmNKd1qEDq5qA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0ZabL2S=UhB2u7en2AfrckPk5CQe0YN-i4eDXQK-LF6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:26:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTvLCs-qXONhEVdOyWJLhQzuu-s3Rff5Y3bCiAj9Rjg-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[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
X-Headers-End: 1Y9ZZz-00028u-Vt
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bi-directional micropayment channels with
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
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, 09 Jan 2015 13:26:21 -0000
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> A limitation on most existing micropayment channel ideas is that payments
>> can only flow in one direction.
> It's worth noting that the original protocol as designed by Satoshi did not
> have this limitation. It has evolved this way because of ad-hoc DoS fixes
> over time (btw I'm not saying they were the wrong thing to do, as non "ad
> hoc" solutions are significantly more work). But it seems like eventually a
> different approach to handling DoS attacks based on resource prioritisation
> and scheduling will become needed / implemented, and at that point the
> original design could be safely brought back to life.
I don't agree with your understanding. Expecting replacement to work
and be enforced is completely unsafe. People (sanely) refuse to use
protocols which are broken by refund malleability, which is a much
narrower expectation for miners than expecting the sequence ratchet to
go one way.
|
