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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bgroff@lavabit.com>) id 1QqDbQ-0007kn-GO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:21:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of lavabit.com
designates 72.249.41.33 as permitted sender)
client-ip=72.249.41.33; envelope-from=bgroff@lavabit.com;
helo=karen.lavabit.com;
Received: from karen.lavabit.com ([72.249.41.33])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1QqDbN-0000dC-MR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:21:56 +0000
Received: from a.earth.lavabit.com (a.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.10])
by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D57211BB42;
Sun, 7 Aug 2011 19:21:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from lavabit.com (rockhall.torservers.net [77.247.181.163])
by lavabit.com with ESMTP id NGNSE00YT4AS;
Sun, 07 Aug 2011 19:21:48 -0500
Received: from 77.247.181.163 (SquirrelMail authenticated user bgroff)
by lavabit.com with HTTP; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 20:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <42430.77.247.181.163.1312762908.squirrel@lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQ6GXfebUV8_PLVpLJ9jvPF8FXiBqwquhGFNZ+Vt3uCtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgQ-L-1K2Oi40tqnhxpnnWQHqgbd4BmqedhA3WcevYiCzg@mail.gmail.com>
<43351.137.56.163.46.1312351847.squirrel@lavabit.com>
<CAAS2fgQ6GXfebUV8_PLVpLJ9jvPF8FXiBqwquhGFNZ+Vt3uCtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 20:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: bgroff@lavabit.com
To: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
X-Headers-End: 1QqDbN-0000dC-MR
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Discussion related to pull 349 and pull
319 (escrow transactions)
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: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:21:56 -0000
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:10 AM, <bgroff@lavabit.com> wrote:
>> Thank you! =C2=A0(I think you mean 319 here)
>
> Correct.
>
>> With Eligius mining !IsStandard transactions and probably other pools
>> open
>> to the idea, I am hopeful that we can quickly get 30%+ of mining power
>> to
>> upgrade, which means that we could still mine these in a reasonable ti=
me
>> frame (under 1 hour).
>
> It's not just a matter of mining power, it's also a question of
> propagation. Matt and I tried to perform a non-standard transaction
> weeks ago and weren't able to get in mined after many hours. (we
> eventually double spent the input with a normal transaction in order
> to make it go away, interestingly one point about non-propagating txn
> is that they're extra vulnerable to double spending by a standard txn,
> as the non-standard one won't preclude the propagation of the standard
> one)
Right, the user would have to connect directly to miners accepting
non-standard transactions.
> From discussion on IRC it seemed clear enough that the current focus
> on maturity/bugfixes is probably going to delay your full patch, but
> the IsStandard part is uncontroversial and could go in quickly.
With the latest high profile security breaches, I am hoping that the whol=
e
things can be pulled relatively soon. Building secure deposit systems
will improve trust in the ecosystem.
I've included a significant amount of unit tests to "pay" for the
additional feature, and I can add more if needed.
--
Bobby Groff
|
