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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andyparkins@gmail.com>) id 1UFst0-0001To-7S
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.170; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com ([74.125.82.170])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UFssz-00075E-D0
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id z53so1543499wey.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.189.169 with SMTP id gj9mr15919792wic.5.1363208811298;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grissom.localnet ([91.84.15.31])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q13sm6834763wie.0.2013.03.13.14.06.49
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:06:44 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.8.4; i686; ; )
References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201303132106.45334.andyparkins@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(andyparkins[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
X-Headers-End: 1UFssz-00075E-D0
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:06:58 -0000
On Wednesday 13 Mar 2013 12:56:29 Luke-Jr wrote:
> Here's a simple proposal to start discussion from...
It seems to me that the biggest failure was not the development of two
chains, but the assurance to users (by the client) that their transactions
were confirmed.
Is it possible to change the definition of "6 confirmations" so that it's
something like: "six confirmations clear of any other chain". While there
are two competing chains, it's possible that one will go pop at any moment.
That makes the confirmation count of any transaction on one of those chains,
zero.
It doesn't seem impossible that clients could be made far more permissive
about acknowledging the existence of blockchains that they wouldn't
necessarily accept themselves (if the proof of work was valid) and warning
the users that it's going on.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com
|
