Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6LrJ-0007ah-Tp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:43:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.181; envelope-from=ibrightly@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6LrH-0002Is-M0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:43:09 +0000 Received: by obbgp2 with SMTP id gp2so91324889obb.2 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:43:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.15.133 with SMTP id x5mr18211127oec.80.1434818582265; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.177.164 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:43:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <201506200348.06564.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:43:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ivan Brightly To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014945c0e9c75e0518f5bb15 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (ibrightly[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1Z6LrH-0002Is-M0 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:43:09 -0000 --089e014945c0e9c75e0518f5bb15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yep - similarly: you live in a neighborhood with a local coffee store. Sure you could use a stolen credit card or a fake $5 bill, but it's not worth the risk of being caught for a $3 coffee. And on the other side, the store can deal with 1% of transactions getting reversed or having a fake bill so they don't change their procedures. Perfection is not necessary in all situations. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote= : > > > On Jun 19, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 1:23:03 AM Aaron Voisine wrote: > >> They don't need to be made cryptographically safe, they just have to b= e > >> safer than, for instance, credit card payments that can be charged > back. As > >> long as it's reasonably good in practice, that's fine. > > > > They never will be. You can get a decent rate of success merely by > making one > > transaction propagate fast (eg, 1 input, 1 output) and the other slow > (eg, > > 1000 inputs, 1000 outputs) and choosing your peers carefully. The only > reason > > unconfirmed transactions aren't double spent today is because nobody is > > seriously *trying*. > > > > Luke > > > > > Newspapers are often sold in vending machines that make it possible for > anyone to just pay the price of one and take them all=E2=80=A6and most of= the time > they are not that carefully monitored. Why? Because most people have bett= er > things to do than try to steal a few newspapers. They probably were much > more closely monitored earlier in their history=E2=80=A6but once it becam= e clear > that despite the obvious attack vector very few people actually try to ga= me > it, vendors figured it wasn=E2=80=99t really that big a risk. Same thing = applies to > people trying to steal a piece of bubble gum at the cash register at a > convenience store by double-spending. > > - Eric Lombrozo > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > _______________________________________________ > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --089e014945c0e9c75e0518f5bb15 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yep - similarly: you live in a neighborhood with a local c= offee store. Sure you could use a stolen credit card or a fake $5 bill, but= it's not worth the risk of being caught for a $3 coffee. And on the ot= her side, the store can deal with 1% of transactions getting reversed or ha= ving a fake bill so they don't change their procedures.

<= div>Perfection is not necessary in all situations.

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:02 = AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 19, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 1:23:03 AM Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> They don't need to be made cryptographically safe, they just h= ave to be
>> safer than, for instance, credit card payments that can be charged= back. As
>> long as it's reasonably good in practice, that's fine.
>
> They never will be. You can get a decent rate of success merely by mak= ing one
> transaction propagate fast (eg, 1 input, 1 output) and the other slow = (eg,
> 1000 inputs, 1000 outputs) and choosing your peers carefully. The only= reason
> unconfirmed transactions aren't double spent today is because nobo= dy is
> seriously *trying*.
>
> Luke
>


Newspapers are often sold in vending machines that make it possible for any= one to just pay the price of one and take them all=E2=80=A6and most of the = time they are not that carefully monitored. Why? Because most people have b= etter things to do than try to steal a few newspapers. They probably were m= uch more closely monitored earlier in their history=E2=80=A6but once it bec= ame clear that despite the obvious attack vector very few people actually t= ry to game it, vendors figured it wasn=E2=80=99t really that big a risk. Sa= me thing applies to people trying to steal a piece of bubble gum at the cas= h register at a convenience store by double-spending.

- Eric Lombrozo

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-d= evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/l= ists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development


--089e014945c0e9c75e0518f5bb15--