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
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>) id 1YLye0-0002M1-VV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:37:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.181;
envelope-from=allen.piscitello@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YLydu-00078G-Kb
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:37:44 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r20so6638704wiv.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:37:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.79.226 with SMTP id m2mr10651398wjx.60.1423766252580;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.48.105 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:37:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54DCECE4.3020802@riseup.net>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUQ87jWhq1p6RK1eKEuEP1ERxN_P2SS0=YsFEGAqRyMPLA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2H2T2QFZceCc=YzwwiApJy7kY7FN0LoAZODGbW12SYsw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kURa8g3YTPi-GHKAt4v0csxXe=QhGhV3aQcDZGSr=Lb7RQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2hAUsRfeXUo-DLiiRmG5uJcwFuP4=o1S6Fb7ts5Ud=bw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMztrzMh8=Y6SD-JV1hpTTbGB8Y2u=59bQhGtF6h3+Ei_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
<356E7F6E-300A-4127-9885-2183FB1DE447@gmail.com>
<54DCECE4.3020802@riseup.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:37:32 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJfRnm4OBEJPW-6CiY5fQ1kUYppDnTtZfLF_YpBEaB8ovzx9og@mail.gmail.com>
From: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0c538ba77d3050ee8691a
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
(allen.piscitello[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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: 1YLydu-00078G-Kb
Cc: Bitcoin Development <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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:37:45 -0000
--047d7bf0c538ba77d3050ee8691a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
You cannot close Pandora's box. Whether or not this type of patch should
exist is irrelevant. It does, and there are incentives to use it by
miners. These are the bounds we have to deal with and the world we must
adapt to.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/12/2015 05:24 PM, Oleg Andreev wrote:
> >
> >> I think that is a misdirection on your part. The point of
> >> replace-by-fee is to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable.
> >> Currently people can "get away" with 0-confirms but it's only
> >> because most people arent actively double spending, and when they
> >> do it is for higher value targets. Double spend attacks are
> >> happening a lot more frequently than is being admitted here,
> >> according to Peter from work with various clients.
> >>
> >> Like single address reuse, people have gotten used to something
> >> which is bad. Generally accepting 0-conf is also a bad idea(tm)
> >> and instant confirmation solutions should be sought elsewhere.
> >> There are already interesting solutions and concepts:
> >> greenaddress for example, and CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY micropayment
> >> channels for example. Rather than supporting and promoting risky
> >> 0-confirms, we need to spend time on better alternative solutions
> >> that will work for everyone and not during the honeymoon phase
> >> where attackers are fewer.
> >
> > Here's value-free assessment of the issue here:
> >
> > 1. Zero-conf txs are unsafe. 2. We'd all want to have a safer
> > instant payments solution if possible. 3. As a social artifact,
> > today zeroconf txs happen to work for some people in some
> > situations. 4. Replace-by-fee will break #3 and probably hasten
> > development of #2.
> >
> > The discussion boils down to whether we should make #2 happen
> > sooner by breaking remnants of #3 sooner.
> >
> > I personally would rather not break anything, but work as fast as
> > possible on #2 so no matter when and how #3 becomes utterly broken,
> > we have a better solution. This implies that I also don't want to
> > waste time debating with Peter Todd and others. I want to be ready
> > with a working tool when zeroconf completely fails (with that patch
> > or for some other reasons).
> >
> > TL;DR: those who are against the patch are better off building a
> > decentralized clearing network rather than wasting time on debates.
> > When we have such network, we might all want this patch to be used
> > for all the reasons Peter has already outlined.
>
> You've left out of the discussion that many (or all) proposed
> solutions for 2 either reduce privacy, or security, or both.
>
> That fact should not be ignored or swept under the rug.
>
> There's also no mention of the degree to which child-pays-for-parent
> achieves the stated aims of the original proposal (clearing mempool of
> stuck transactions, increasing payee assurance of conformation)
> without introducing incentives to double spend or forcing people into
> privacy/security sacrifices.
>
>
> - --
> Support online privacy by using email encryption whenever possible.
> Learn how here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bakOKJFtB-k
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJU3OzkAAoJECpf2nDq2eYjDM8P/1a4bNa5s0ryMZHBxyhGcVk5
> 6hTSPpUF2/Y81JaC/EqzH8MMKqnPVcLxoikKoO5tIUxeo5bwC5OO8YyGk4NrpeCM
> HTmROR+4XFOULi1dsUs5LP5oBQ+sPu1uNOZKn2fPCgtkO0xj8/w3mCdlVlf7g+v4
> bYt6rSmSCzyCY0qFQVYvyBoYeSVt6icdz45D54BvyNsEtlT+HvbNdG/SznT7QsLF
> 2rOZezp5zbIyhbhaV5KtCKwYzATFYr0nWFHVnBkYWcOY3mJdPg6zODUO5ocbGs45
> RHEB8KMsKtrD+gnCwCoSb+J6TNlA8y//ilKemPb+gRSVVM1JJpHBwv7fc8jUu2Ap
> V9YNKOVOrmoGb5X2sCctAZ6474p8HCUgZh50OluQph01tGtq3uC1djJUvnVCP232
> FQD47AU2LhU3wPjWSGEDIGtpeAk91+6huRCzv600xnIISd5KpryKpD6qWC3M4MGs
> G4omAZhHjW5/E8CO/CH21nbPA2P1wozrGE5N8UTc2kwias/4Vn+v3IedjnSiS+IF
> n37MzlyCVs9qXyT7WylT4UAnc9exxHwGXKrvcCUaIAw7FOFEHjiHYLjZFIrVWmpM
> 7qxjMD/yM3kDmd/+YxCbITAERsHh04k4PITLVbnOyXY+axi+Xuow9v5HvwqERvt8
> XjbkwrkFIuKfUJyfIuR+
> =ony0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
> your
> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--047d7bf0c538ba77d3050ee8691a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">You cannot close Pandora's box.=C2=A0 Whether or not t=
his type of patch should exist is irrelevant.=C2=A0 It does, and there are =
incentives to use it by miners.=C2=A0 These are the bounds we have to deal =
with and the world we must adapt to.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Justus Ranvier <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:justusranvier@riseup.net" target=3D"=
_blank">justusranvier@riseup.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<br>
</span><div><div class=3D"h5">On 02/12/2015 05:24 PM, Oleg Andreev wrote:<b=
r>
><br>
>> I think that is a misdirection on your part. The point of<br>
>> replace-by-fee is to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable.<br>
>> Currently people can "get away" with 0-confirms but it&#=
39;s only<br>
>> because most people arent actively double spending, and when they<=
br>
>> do it is for higher value targets. Double spend attacks are<br>
>> happening a lot more frequently than is being admitted here,<br>
>> according to Peter from work with various clients.<br>
>><br>
>> Like single address reuse, people have gotten used to something<br=
>
>> which is bad. Generally accepting 0-conf is also a bad idea(tm)<br=
>
>> and instant confirmation solutions should be sought elsewhere.<br>
>> There are already interesting solutions and concepts:<br>
>> greenaddress for example, and CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY micropayment<br>
>> channels for example. Rather than supporting and promoting risky<b=
r>
>> 0-confirms, we need to spend time on better alternative solutions<=
br>
>> that will work for everyone and not during the honeymoon phase<br>
>> where attackers are fewer.<br>
><br>
> Here's value-free assessment of the issue here:<br>
><br>
> 1. Zero-conf txs are unsafe. 2. We'd all want to have a safer<br>
> instant payments solution if possible. 3. As a social artifact,<br>
> today zeroconf txs happen to work for some people in some<br>
> situations. 4. Replace-by-fee will break #3 and probably hasten<br>
> development of #2.<br>
><br>
> The discussion boils down to whether we should make #2 happen<br>
> sooner by breaking remnants of #3 sooner.<br>
><br>
> I personally would rather not break anything, but work as fast as<br>
> possible on #2 so no matter when and how #3 becomes utterly broken,<br=
>
> we have a better solution. This implies that I also don't want to<=
br>
> waste time debating with Peter Todd and others. I want to be ready<br>
> with a working tool when zeroconf completely fails (with that patch<br=
>
> or for some other reasons).<br>
><br>
> TL;DR: those who are against the patch are better off building a<br>
> decentralized clearing network rather than wasting time on debates.<br=
>
> When we have such network, we might all want this patch to be used<br>
> for all the reasons Peter has already outlined.<br>
<br>
</div></div>You've left out of the discussion that many (or all) propos=
ed<br>
solutions for 2 either reduce privacy, or security, or both.<br>
<br>
That fact should not be ignored or swept under the rug.<br>
<br>
There's also no mention of the degree to which child-pays-for-parent<br=
>
achieves the stated aims of the original proposal (clearing mempool of<br>
stuck transactions, increasing payee assurance of conformation)<br>
without introducing incentives to double spend or forcing people into<br>
privacy/security sacrifices.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
<br>
- --<br>
Support online privacy by using email encryption whenever possible.<br>
Learn how here: <a href=3D"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbakOKJFtB-k" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbakOKJFtB-k</a><br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</span>iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJU3OzkAAoJECpf2nDq2eYjDM8P/1a4bNa5s0ryMZHBxyhGcVk5<br>
6hTSPpUF2/Y81JaC/EqzH8MMKqnPVcLxoikKoO5tIUxeo5bwC5OO8YyGk4NrpeCM<br>
HTmROR+4XFOULi1dsUs5LP5oBQ+sPu1uNOZKn2fPCgtkO0xj8/w3mCdlVlf7g+v4<br>
bYt6rSmSCzyCY0qFQVYvyBoYeSVt6icdz45D54BvyNsEtlT+HvbNdG/SznT7QsLF<br>
2rOZezp5zbIyhbhaV5KtCKwYzATFYr0nWFHVnBkYWcOY3mJdPg6zODUO5ocbGs45<br>
RHEB8KMsKtrD+gnCwCoSb+J6TNlA8y//ilKemPb+gRSVVM1JJpHBwv7fc8jUu2Ap<br>
V9YNKOVOrmoGb5X2sCctAZ6474p8HCUgZh50OluQph01tGtq3uC1djJUvnVCP232<br>
FQD47AU2LhU3wPjWSGEDIGtpeAk91+6huRCzv600xnIISd5KpryKpD6qWC3M4MGs<br>
G4omAZhHjW5/E8CO/CH21nbPA2P1wozrGE5N8UTc2kwias/4Vn+v3IedjnSiS+IF<br>
n37MzlyCVs9qXyT7WylT4UAnc9exxHwGXKrvcCUaIAw7FOFEHjiHYLjZFIrVWmpM<br>
7qxjMD/yM3kDmd/+YxCbITAERsHh04k4PITLVbnOyXY+axi+Xuow9v5HvwqERvt8<br>
XjbkwrkFIuKfUJyfIuR+<br>
=3Dony0<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,<br>
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is you=
r<br>
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought<br>
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a<=
br>
look and join the conversation now. <a href=3D"http://goparallel.sourceforg=
e.net/" target=3D"_blank">http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/</a><br>_______=
________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7bf0c538ba77d3050ee8691a--
|
