MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<c2a392703d02e1d674a029c60deb6d94@riseup.net>
	<20150619151127.GA11263@savin.petertodd.org>
	<04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:16:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqsMtUdDZ+fWPZVUnoLTv-ziVM0hPs10L=9f3ZnRXD0fQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Precedence: list

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the require=
ment that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come fr=
om anywhere at any time=E2=80=A6

I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument
from authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I
think the assumptions while using the system should be:

"As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are
not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest
chain and outpace attackers."

I can't say for sure what was meant by "attacking the network" in this
context but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and
proof-of-work-timestamped history.
Unconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering
unconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a
universal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work in
the first place.

Alternative policies are NOT attacks on the network.