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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1Z5zNM-00018g-70
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:42:44 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.172; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pd0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5zNL-00007Q-Bp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:42:44 +0000
Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so94223922pdj.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.66.250.131 with SMTP id zc3mr33600041pac.136.1434732157713;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
[76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
ni1sm11747680pdb.32.2015.06.19.09.42.34
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_C8433300-F6CD-4ADA-A3C6-38680EA8D97D";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:42:33 -0700
Message-Id: <83A7C606-B601-47D2-BE10-2A1412D97514@gmail.com>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
<04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com>
<812d8353e66637ec182da31bc0a9aac1@riseup.net>
<1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
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
(elombrozo[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
0.4 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z5zNL-00007Q-Bp
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
justusranvier@riseup.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
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, 19 Jun 2015 16:42:44 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_C8433300-F6CD-4ADA-A3C6-38680EA8D97D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should =
explicitly define one rather than relying on =E2=80=9Cprima facie=E2=80=9D=
assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence =
of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay=E2=80=A6
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier@riseup.net wrote:
>> I'd also like to note that "prima facie" doesn't mean "always", it =
means
>> that "the default assumption, unless proven otherwise."
>=20
> Why would you automatically assume fraud by default? Shouldn't the =
null hypothesis be the default? Without any information one way or =
another, you ought to make *no assumption* about the fraudulence or =
non-fraudulence of any given double-spend.
--Apple-Mail=_C8433300-F6CD-4ADA-A3C6-38680EA8D97D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=jk6y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_C8433300-F6CD-4ADA-A3C6-38680EA8D97D--
|
