Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1VdI3X-0000EI-5I
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:10:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.172; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ea0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1VdI3W-0002Rn-5K
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:10:51 +0000
Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r16so3383709ead.3
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:10:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
	bh=t9L6DTseWK7Z2ivjsoEek8a/+nBCI/bPpWP5nEZuHLQ=;
	b=WmFJyOfWBMMYP0dKEQE/Mav6Nu+3cV8QPRv5k7TueLXpOatQOlHU02sd5a5aGhRn4b
	aYsUwxET0OOTYUVGE8uocOcM0Raeh7mHbGb0IMKsr/e61ZRYPa9tw1yyuoXhCoLhFiMh
	tVVDtO3mcfgC+PSgGiXiQsd4GvVpsoY2JKcS2jV+CXu5KxrIUNhaUvYq7W6Agdr1+OLT
	FwRJ7yso7cFNS0odIdbgcHTpT42szFDakhsTCalsr7vbbtf7IYrYLIDm2UdsAbZHONLn
	aWoK4htO/Nn6A8VTOLJCbGP3TbbIfh209AqKrdo0uskph+1DpN9GZd/EvbJdvjvY6w++
	zrKg==
X-Received: by 10.15.34.198 with SMTP id e46mr969203eev.108.1383563443809;
	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e13sm45188153eeu.4.2013.11.04.03.10.42
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 8D0E52E0B80; Mon,  4 Nov 2013 12:10:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
	Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:10:38 +0100
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:10:38 +0100
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <20131104111038.GA24552@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin>
	<CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131024144358.GA17142@savin>
	<CANEZrP1TfM+wYbGjUk3+8JJZs6cKZXdb57xGMc=hDr9dQjMMZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131024145447.GA19949@savin>
	<CABsx9T0T0v=HnRRr6BLKNQOFMBJWrhF4G4SOCJ9DidGJBB8Eow@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.w5h2rwhcyldrnw@laptop-air>
	<CABsx9T0nc-TO1_=n47UnYHiWKSNvci9Xyhni9PQa=DRo1B7FDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaL=UVnfVkU_mbQKE2gg7RXBv+B13A1eHU4VpiHkBdmfea80g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131104105243.GA28805@savin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131104105243.GA28805@savin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:131104:pete@petertodd.org::955qFT10B/h+aSlK:0000000000000000000
	000000000000000000000000953v
X-Hashcash: 1:20:131104:john.dillon892@googlemail.com::H9gZDaR31oDJvU2w:00000000
	000000000000000000000000359Y
X-Hashcash: 1:20:131104:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::NdakJew4GK0jF
	HvX:000000000000000000001VFt
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
	(adam.back[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1VdI3W-0002Rn-5K
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Zeroconf-safe tx replacement
 (replace-for-fee)
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:10:51 -0000

Might leak less wiggle room and be simpler/more robut to validate that
*everything* has to be the same except for the amount going to one (presumed
change) address.  A privacy leak I know, but dont do that - ie send enough
change the first time.  And network analysis has shown change addresses
arent adding hardly any privacy.

We need more robust privacy fixes independently.  I do not support damaging
the 0-conf feature, so I think this later approach is a better track for
revising fees.

Adam

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:52:43AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:17:50AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
>> This discussion seems to be a lot of hot air over a simple observation that
>> estimates are imperfect and always will be. I do not understand you vehement
>> opposition the notion that a backup is a good thing except in the context that
>> replacement to change fees is halfway to profit-seeking replacement by fee.
>>
>>
>> Peter Todd:
>>
>> You did a fair bit of leg work for replace-by-fee. Seems to me that
>> replace-for-fee will help prep infrastructure to eventual replace-by-fee usage,
>> while avoiding some of the politics around zero-conf transactions.