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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <rebroad@gmail.com>) id 1SQaP6-0007Av-7i
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=rebroad@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SQaP3-0002gZ-VA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 +0000
Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so1842252wib.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 05 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.142.226 with SMTP id i76mr5873335wej.28.1336206699859;
Sat, 05 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rebroad@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.6.18 with HTTP; Sat, 5 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBxzADBoEU9ncCxsHg7_tMz_WmAnhDrh_m8kWw4Nb5FykjfEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFBxzADBoEU9ncCxsHg7_tMz_WmAnhDrh_m8kWw4Nb5FykjfEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 09:31:39 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: tEAX7pjQ_myP2wR-IEDJbzhDPRA
Message-ID: <CAFBxzAADB9PvbzQpH8R0CSH5yTy-9bG8Bf=gRjDnbPDdWXsGsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rebroad (sourceforge)" <rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f
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
(rebroad[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: 1SQaP3-0002gZ-VA
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Potential network split when individual tx
used as coinbase?
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: Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 -0000
--0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi,
>
>
Looking at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aaf2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.cpp-P52
It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to DoS(100) nodes sending
on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does this mean txs that are
0 confirmed?
If so, then, is this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about
services popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0
confirmed transactions, and therefore there must be peers around that
accept these.
Or have I misread the code?
Cheers,
Ed
PS. Would a BIP have been applicable for the above-mentioned change?
--0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Looking at:=A0<a href=3D"https://github.co=
m/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aaf2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.=
cpp-P52" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aa=
f2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.cpp-P52</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to Do=
S(100) nodes sending on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does t=
his mean txs that are 0 confirmed?</div><div><br></div><div>If so, then, is=
this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about servic=
es popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0 confirmed tran=
sactions, and therefore there must be peers around that accept these.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Or have I misread the code?</div><div><br></div><div>Ch=
eers,</div><div>Ed</div><div><br></div><div>PS. Would a BIP have been appli=
cable for the=A0above-mentioned change?=A0</div>
<br>
--0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f--
|
