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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pw@vps7135.xlshosting.net>) id 1S2TsG-0004pa-Sn
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:16 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1S2TsF-0006lD-Og for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:16 +0000
Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 7ABEF60DA2; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:24:15 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:24:15 +0100
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <20120228202414.GA16255@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CAPg+sBhb+gYMwp1OJuCHYt5=BU63=YBWOFaLLthHBkN_U-scaA@mail.gmail.com>
<201202281323.02976.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201202281323.02976.luke@dashjr.org>
X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is
CUSTOM_MED
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit,
and not from a mailing list
X-Headers-End: 1S2TsF-0006lD-Og
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability
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: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:17 -0000
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:23:01PM -0500, Luke-Jr wrote:
> Has it been verified to make even rocconor's complicated transaction-based
> version impossible?
Yes, he tried it on testnet against a patched node.
> > The purpose of this mail is asking for support for adding this rule to
> > the protocol rules. If there is consensus this rule is the solution, I
> > hope pools and miners can agree to update their nodes without lengthy
> > coinbase-flagging procedure that would only delay a solution. So, who
> > is in favor?
>
> Can we do this in two steps? First, prefer blocks which don't break the rule;
> once 55%+ are confirmed to have upgraded, then it is safe to treat it as a
> hard rule.
I prefer to avoid this if possible, as it increases the size of the patch
significantly. In particular, it would require the discouragement-system to
be backported to whatever versions pools are running. The current proposal
only requires adding 6 lines of code.
--
Pieter
|
