Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Y9ZU7-00029D-3K
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:20:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Y9ZU6-0001fP-1D
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:20:15 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so2206478wiv.5
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:20:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.206.47 with SMTP id ll15mr5218129wic.34.1420809607897;
	Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:20:07 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.9 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:20:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAGNXQMSSCtgiyFEGHS2ufuc-RZcAtpEJyFpQMDmNKd1qEDq5qA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGNXQMSSCtgiyFEGHS2ufuc-RZcAtpEJyFpQMDmNKd1qEDq5qA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:20:07 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: n2n3mfGAxcQr1W4sXuEkDjsFWGE
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0ZabL2S=UhB2u7en2AfrckPk5CQe0YN-i4eDXQK-LF6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Nathan Cook <nathan.cook@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25c20f97fe4050c3803bc
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Y9ZU6-0001fP-1D
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bi-directional micropayment channels with
	CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:20:15 -0000

--001a11c25c20f97fe4050c3803bc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> A limitation on most existing micropayment channel ideas is that payments
> can only flow in one direction.
>

It's worth noting that the original protocol as designed by Satoshi did not
have this limitation. It has evolved this way because of ad-hoc DoS fixes
over time (btw I'm not saying they were the wrong thing to do, as non "ad
hoc" solutions are significantly more work). But it seems like eventually a
different approach to handling DoS attacks based on resource prioritisation
and scheduling will become needed / implemented, and at that point the
original design could be safely brought back to life.

--001a11c25c20f97fe4050c3803bc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>A limitation on most existing micropayme=
nt channel ideas is that payments can only flow in one direction.=C2=A0</di=
v></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s worth noting that the ori=
ginal protocol as designed by Satoshi did not have this limitation. It has =
evolved this way because of ad-hoc DoS fixes over time (btw I&#39;m not say=
ing they were the wrong thing to do, as non &quot;ad hoc&quot; solutions ar=
e significantly more work). But it seems like eventually a different approa=
ch to handling DoS attacks based on resource prioritisation and scheduling =
will become needed / implemented, and at that point the original design cou=
ld be safely brought back to life.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

--001a11c25c20f97fe4050c3803bc--