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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <btcdev@quinnharris.me>) id 1UepjQ-0001Xk-NV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 21 May 2013 16:48:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of quinnharris.me
designates 67.223.164.214 as permitted sender)
client-ip=67.223.164.214; envelope-from=btcdev@quinnharris.me;
helo=fza.durangomail.com;
Received: from fza.durangomail.com ([67.223.164.214])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UepjN-0007w6-EW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 21 May 2013 16:48:12 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fza.durangomail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1562E1EB03E
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 21 May 2013 10:48:04 -0600 (MDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fza.durangomail.com
Received: from fza.durangomail.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (fza.durangomail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id RzVZ6jnUvs5K
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 21 May 2013 10:48:03 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fza.durangomail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AED91EB041
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 21 May 2013 10:48:03 -0600 (MDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fza.durangomail.com
Received: from fza.durangomail.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (fza.durangomail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
with ESMTP id lNHxgF_HpGEE
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 21 May 2013 10:48:03 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.74] (172-3-184-238.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net
[172.3.184.238])
by fza.durangomail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0188E1EB03E
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 21 May 2013 10:48:02 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <519BA53F.7090404@quinnharris.me>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:47:59 -0600
From: Quinn Harris <btcdev@quinnharris.me>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <519AC3A8.1020306@quinnharris.me>
<CA+i0-i_+Tes+ePRqmDGEXDQ_L=S5y8gHBKk77zaLgTGOS3OMyA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjmXyLkgfwzC8h+ZFkmyUf6nzbGo0oAWR9nsJOTOfOXEg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRCpXUgw=GpE9_AcTgWcdCaDC6_16Xp5+oOZC0_1xmf-w@mail.gmail.com>
<20130521130534.GA27580@tilt>
In-Reply-To: <20130521130534.GA27580@tilt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
X-Headers-End: 1UepjN-0007w6-EW
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double Spend Notification
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, 21 May 2013 16:48:12 -0000
What if a transaction is tagged as eligible for replace by fee possibly
using the lock_time (0xFFFFFFFE) so the parties involved can decide
which approach works best for them. If the receiving side doesn't see
the type of transaction they want they consider it invalid. The payment
protocol can be used to negotiate which method should be used.
If lock_time is final as it is now for all standard transactions, the
current behaviour for transaction propagation would be kept with the
addition of double spend proof notifications as I described. But if the
transactions are tagged appropriately, they would be replaced by fee.
In the recommended implementation, once a node sees a transaction that
is not eligible to be replaced by fee it would treat all successive
transactions that way despite the tag.
This shouldn't hurt merchants that wish to use just double spend
notification while still enabling replace by fee for those who think it
is preferred.
I do find the burn coins and buyer pays twice with a merchant refund to
be compelling solutions, but you can't always trust the merchant (face
to face street merchant). Also, there is a short window of time were a
block can be mined before the burn coin counter measure is received. It
is isn't guaranteed this will work better than current behaviour with
double spend notification especially considering notification don't cost
the merchant when it works.
- Quinn
|
