Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DE3DC88 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:38:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731421B2 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id rt7so24905150obb.3 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:38:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=qkklEvAQ0aPSXhNLqjk+R3ta8iC6239H5WIUNkallr4=; b=M4R4yfKAmarxzIkGQJAvfCyUACuywmGLxC+DNuKcmOqybnjxicG6NKLFow/7pKG74k VMctuwND+0QGbix5LrQol4CpP+PDxFT8keByzyfyQunzsew3vRidceZ9vXpNM6Tgx0XP g2a7W7Ythvva0hGrkIOY2ksRfm/c1iMTdxzV82Qqcw4wW+bhrrlNx+3GVSDo919FRt4n kcKixEg6xuCYGeOJtz/AAtVey/lOTgV9g1GX+g+mUScPRpdc/iBMIfyqHr7sp1+rl0Ed 8jxMA/qKbr/TGwrzDYUE2iaE36K7EuwBATWKrClPN1ZUzeu9jsWu6+B24+EslCrxqwOQ Hiew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=qkklEvAQ0aPSXhNLqjk+R3ta8iC6239H5WIUNkallr4=; b=Hxtt6+DTW6yG8UWtXID0lhwDLSZa31kN/fGpfKsYFE6egH4XliKv05T2Px9tJI0EFz WUa6VjKRPbxkwsZ67vUYHGhQeIXlSD/woP3G1eDBbfsPYQv2xTe0r8FechpZCwtpSAee pJQsZYJJqsmwqbpleKUZlFPO+NnrAqMMKwPwFWyDpi9js6Dw9Q10PZSoPgsoASwqDRRz /FxRsXYZA/EeKsiuOjuRQ2q0rS8BwRpmSWleAMcTNPnxokbUssEOEtkmm4wwezGKWzp6 Wi+oj4QGiZwc6fK79tlYLW59k55xO5zre/s7zJaWw3tIRm2BoHx8frUvfDVKmFr52enQ Birg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKkheYrVbC6aHsnoki9+IVBqNwR6ab5e0+NLgX7CJTSZc4/8AXzdEVhs3H6tmkx+a3dJzIMVnmDyVM45g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.141.227 with SMTP id rr3mr1462732oeb.57.1457023097724; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:38:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.55.71 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:38:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <56D835D3.9070902@librelamp.com> <20160303150418.GA2341@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:38:17 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nOQv66unX8XvaSIDJaiozuIezEc Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33957d2b7b5a052d27a079 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 21:00:55 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] consensus rule change for TX fee safety X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:38:20 -0000 --047d7b33957d2b7b5a052d27a079 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It would be a shame to prohibit someone from rewarding whoever mines their transaction. A good example would be a transaction designed to record some information which is damning to powerful authorities, sort of like the service cryptograffiti offers. When we try to protect others by prohibiting behavior we think is foolish, we may save some fools, but at the same time, we hurt the best of us. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There's an absurd fee (non-consensus) check already. Maybe that check ca= n > be improved, but probably the wallet layer is more appropriate for this. > On Mar 3, 2016 16:23, "Henning Kopp via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I think there is no need to do a hardfork for this. Rather it should >> be implemented as a safety-mechanism in the client. Perhaps a warning >> can pop up, if one of your conditions A) or B) is met. >> >> All the best >> Henning Kopp >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:02:11AM -0800, Alice Wonder via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> > I think the next hard fork should require a safety rule for TX fees. >> > >> > >> https://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943d= ef6dbe1eb0a9388ed08 >> > >> > 15 BTC TX fee for < 7 BTC of outputs. >> > >> > Probably either a typo or client bug. >> > >> > My guess is the user was using a client that does not adjust TX fee, a= nd >> > needed to manually set it in order to get the TX in the block sooner, >> and >> > meant 15 mBTC or something. >> > >> > I suggest that either : >> > >> > A) TX fee may not be larger than sum of outputs >> > B) TX fee per byte may not be larger than 4X largest fee per byte in >> > previous block >> > >> > Either of those would have prevented this TX from going into a block. >> > >> > Many people I know are scared of bitcoin, that they will make a TX and >> make >> > a mistake they can't undo. >> > >> > Adding protections may help give confidence and there is precedence to >> doing >> > things to prevent typo blunders - a public address has a four byte >> checksum >> > to reduce the odds of a typo. >> > >> > This kind of mistake is rare, so a fix could be included in the coming >> HF >> > for the possible July 2017 block increase. >> > >> > Thank you for your time. >> > >> > Alice Wonder >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > >> >> -- >> Henning Kopp >> Institute of Distributed Systems >> Ulm University, Germany >> >> Office: O27 - 3402 >> Phone: +49 731 50-24138 >> Web: http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/~kopp >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --=20 I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a techie? I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha). I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin. I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto --047d7b33957d2b7b5a052d27a079 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It would be a shame to prohibit someone from rewarding who= ever mines their transaction.=C2=A0 A good example would be a transaction d= esigned to record some information which is damning to powerful authorities= , sort of like the service cryptograffiti offers.=C2=A0 When we try to prot= ect others by prohibiting behavior we think is foolish, we may save some fo= ols, but at the same time, we hurt the best of us.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:36 AM, = Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:

Th= ere's=C2=A0 an absurd fee (non-consensus) check already. Maybe that che= ck can be improved, but probably the wallet layer is more appropriate for t= his.

On Mar 3, 2016 16:23, "Henning Kopp via bit= coin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think there is no need to do a hardfork for this. Rather it should
be implemented as a safety-mechanism in the client. Perhaps a warning
can pop up, if one of your conditions A) or B) is met.

All the best
Henning Kopp


On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:02:11AM -0800, Alice Wonder via bitcoin-dev wrot= e:
> I think the next hard fork should require a safety rule for TX fees. >
> http= s://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943def6dbe1= eb0a9388ed08
>
> 15 BTC TX fee for < 7 BTC of outputs.
>
> Probably either a typo or client bug.
>
> My guess is the user was using a client that does not adjust TX fee, a= nd
> needed to manually set it in order to get the TX in the block sooner, = and
> meant 15 mBTC or something.
>
> I suggest that either :
>
> A) TX fee may not be larger than sum of outputs
> B) TX fee per byte may not be larger than 4X largest fee per byte in > previous block
>
> Either of those would have prevented this TX from going into a block.<= br> >
> Many people I know are scared of bitcoin, that they will make a TX and= make
> a mistake they can't undo.
>
> Adding protections may help give confidence and there is precedence to= doing
> things to prevent typo blunders - a public address has a four byte che= cksum
> to reduce the odds of a typo.
>
> This kind of mistake is rare, so a fix could be included in the coming= HF
> for the possible July 2017 block increase.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Alice Wonder
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--
Henning Kopp
Institute of Distributed Systems
Ulm University, Germany

Office: O27 - 3402
Phone: +49 731 50-24138
Web: http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/~kopp
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




--
I like to provide some work at no charge to pr= ove my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm th= e webmaster for T= he Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante= .
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" -= Satoshi Nakamoto
--047d7b33957d2b7b5a052d27a079--