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
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YLuZL-00039y-JT
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:16:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YLuZK-0007nB-KZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:16:39 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w55so10396261wes.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:16:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.61.51 with SMTP id m19mr8235919wjr.39.1423750592624;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:16:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7C80D196-AB91-44EA-B2D7-343D7214BAA8@bitsofproof.com>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUQ87jWhq1p6RK1eKEuEP1ERxN_P2SS0=YsFEGAqRyMPLA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2H2T2QFZceCc=YzwwiApJy7kY7FN0LoAZODGbW12SYsw@mail.gmail.com>
<7C80D196-AB91-44EA-B2D7-343D7214BAA8@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:16:32 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uWQCQyApOGGlzBYDB2QnK6BEBgg
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2d-jkosS1AZob8-QEpb1mhFEgVHV65QZ0u+vXysiJ2bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1
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: 1YLuZK-0007nB-KZ
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:16:39 -0000
--047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> You can not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent,
> as it could be the world as observed by some.
>
Fraudulent in what sense?
If you mean the legal term, then you'd use the legal "beyond reasonable
doubt" test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes
later once? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500
times in a row? Probably not a fluke.
If you mean under a technical definition then I think Tom Harding has been
researching this topic, though I've only kept half an eye on it. I guess
it's some statistical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure
good incentives with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the
block chain algorithm already works w.r.t orphans.
--047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1
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"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>You can=
not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent, as it cou=
ld be the world as observed by some.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
><div>Fraudulent in what sense?</div><div><br></div><div>If you mean the le=
gal term, then you'd use the legal "beyond reasonable doubt" =
test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes later o=
nce? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500 times in a =
row? Probably not a fluke.</div><div><br></div><div>If you mean under a tec=
hnical definition then I think Tom Harding has been researching this topic,=
though I've only kept half an eye on it. I guess it's some statist=
ical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure good incentives =
with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the block chain alg=
orithm already works w.r.t orphans.</div></div></div></div>
--047d7b66fa5f5280cc050ee4c4b1--
|
