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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <joliver@airmail.cc>) id 1YPYIQ-0001PR-AN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of airmail.cc
designates 75.102.27.230 as permitted sender)
client-ip=75.102.27.230; envelope-from=joliver@airmail.cc;
helo=cock.li;
Received: from cock.li ([75.102.27.230])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YPYIN-0002zL-Ne
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chen.cock.li
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,NO_RECEIVED,
NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:05 +0000
From: joliver@airmail.cc
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <20150222143353.GA32621@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CALqxMTGBVdMX2RkuXNhkJ38XRM6DgAj+OmQTfHWuVF=emD-06Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20150222123428.GA6570@savin.petertodd.org>
<CALqxMTHuD1WuV_mVeSD-TaFszVms=hogUTL2bNc7YgNDyhVOoQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150222143353.GA32621@savin.petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <48c47e2a2c7916e7bf63f2219a9aeb72@airmail.cc>
X-Sender: joliver@airmail.cc
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YPYIN-0002zL-Ne
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes
double-spend (Re: 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: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 -0000
On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:
>> My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed
>> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical
>> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something
>> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the
>> current weaker 0-conf transactions.
>>
>> If I understand this is also your own motivation.
>
> Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective
> tools
> to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their
> effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few
> people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore.
You mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while
working for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to
sell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this.
I and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out
that they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success
rates.
> As for the
> remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my
> consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person
> trading for instance.
A "team"
You mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized
LocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions.
|
