Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51CC6259.3060003@inf.ethz.ch>
References: <51CC12A6.3090100@inf.ethz.ch>
	<CAAS2fgRg8B_j=Luf31R8-+vqOWQOUcUDof8wdq79_Ar9YuUm9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<51CC6259.3060003@inf.ethz.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:16:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0MVrQN6hyuAsYNRJ2CV6fsPnAbRDSUQH+n6jfKdMiFaLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: Arthur Gervais <arthur.gervais@inf.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Ghassan Karame <ghassan@karame.org>,
	bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Hubert Ritzdorf <rihubert@inf.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double-Spending Fast Payments in Bitcoin
 due to Client versions 0.8.1
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Arthur Gervais
<arthur.gervais@inf.ethz.ch> wrote:
> Our only intention is to raise the awareness for merchants who have to
> accept zero-confirmation transactions. They should be aware of the
> signature encoding difference between Bitcoin versions and the possible
> consequences.

Certainly.  Though given current P2P network node version
distributions, it is increasing difficult to relay the older version
of transaction, and will only become more so in the future.

It also remains the case that merchants who accept zero confirmation
transactions are likely already aware of the risk level, and make a
business decision.  One can see tiny digital downloads often at zero
confirmation, but rarely a Porsche or house or bitcoin exchange
deposit.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/