Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.218.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.47; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150619134408.GB27280@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CABHVRKR7bXfDX0_frAv_Ph4Saz3SXwXeZae1DEokorvekPeinw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150619134408.GB27280@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:42:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0PYQc1o-rwwqXRERWtAZ3ueuN5wPHT0RMKkVE42HEXXwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140326a3bee270518e0c8ca
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Precedence: list

--001a1140326a3bee270518e0c8ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> Having said that... honestly, zeroconf is pretty broken already. Only
> with pretty heroic measures like connecting to a significant fraction of
> the Bitcoin network at once, as well as connecting to getblocktemplate
> supporting miners to figure out what transactions are being mined, are
> services having any hope of avoiding getting ripped off. For the average
> user their wallets do a terrible job of showing whether or not an
>

This is no excuse for further degrading the overall network security.

There are many issues to address in the bitcoin ecosystem.  It negatively
impacts users to roll out "scorched earth" replace-by-fee given today's
ecosystem.

Yes, zero conf security is poor.  An outright attack on zero conf degrades
user security even more.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

--001a1140326a3bee270518e0c8ca
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petert=
odd.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Having said that... honestly, ze=
roconf is pretty broken already. Only<br>
with pretty heroic measures like connecting to a significant fraction of<br=
>
the Bitcoin network at once, as well as connecting to getblocktemplate<br>
supporting miners to figure out what transactions are being mined, are<br>
services having any hope of avoiding getting ripped off. For the average<br=
>
user their wallets do a terrible job of showing whether or not an<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is no excuse for further degrading th=
e overall network security.</div><div><br></div><div>There are many issues =
to address in the bitcoin ecosystem.=C2=A0 It negatively impacts users to r=
oll out &quot;scorched earth&quot; replace-by-fee given today&#39;s ecosyst=
em.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, zero conf security is poor.=C2=A0 An outr=
ight attack on zero conf degrades user security even more.</div></div><div>=
<br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core=
 developer and open source evangelist<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<=
a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></d=
iv>
</div></div>

--001a1140326a3bee270518e0c8ca--