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
114
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7EA11045
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:30:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148108.authsmtp.net (outmail148108.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.108])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF5813E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:30:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt21.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBUEUFhi073845;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:30:15 GMT
Received: from muck ([24.114.27.145]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBUESbQQ012700
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:30:11 GMT
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:28:37 -0800
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Message-ID: <20151230142836.GA19507@muck>
References: <CAODYVYf764XafVsbnVnYgsYZtWwKu4Q3cwzL1B=GVWUFjZ5TWg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAODYVYf764XafVsbnVnYgsYZtWwKu4Q3cwzL1B=GVWUFjZ5TWg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: d61062e1-af01-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdQIUHFAXAgsB AmMbWlBeU117WGE7 aQ5PbARZfEhJQQRu
VVdMSlVNFUssc3l0 ZUx/MxlzdQJGeDB1 YEZqECRdXUR8dxN8
Xx8CFWwbZGY1bX0X UkkNagNUcQZLeRZA PlV6Uj1vNG8XDSg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx8 REkMKEoWTEMGGCI1 WxEFG30oEwUvZh1q
d0ZuI0VUFQ4KNUsu P1w7WhRw
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.27.145/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:30:17 -0000
--BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:16:22PM +0100, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev=
wrote:
> That looks very interesting. But is effectively blocking old clients from
> seeing transactions really safe? After all, such transactions are still
> confirmed on the new chain. A person might try to send a similar
> transaction several times, perhaps with increasing fees in an attempt to
> get it to confirm and end up paying someone several times.
It's very dangerous to simply send multiple transactions in such a way
that they don't double-spend each other; you have no good way of knowing
for sure that you're seeing the longest block chain with software alone.
Competently designed software with fee-bumping wouldn't allow that
mistake to be made; the UX should make it clear that txs sent are still
pending until confirmed or clearly double-spent.
> Maybe we could require the tx version number to be increased as well so
> transactions sent from old clients would never confirm? Perhaps your code
> already includes this idea, I need to look at it more closely.
That can mess up pre-signed transations, e.g. refunds.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416
--BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=UFiT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--
|
