Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.182; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pd0-f182.google.com; 
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqsMtUdDZ+fWPZVUnoLTv-ziVM0hPs10L=9f3ZnRXD0fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:47:53 -0700
Message-Id: <17636B68-7A3A-4412-96D7-38CCA7C44E27@gmail.com>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<c2a392703d02e1d674a029c60deb6d94@riseup.net>
	<20150619151127.GA11263@savin.petertodd.org>
	<04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqsMtUdDZ+fWPZVUnoLTv-ziVM0hPs10L=9f3ZnRXD0fQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the =
requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that =
can come from anywhere at any time=E2=80=A6
>=20
> I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument
> from authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I
> think the assumptions while using the system should be:
>=20
> "As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are
> not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest
> chain and outpace attackers."
>=20
> I can't say for sure what was meant by "attacking the network" in this
> context but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and
> proof-of-work-timestamped history.
> Unconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering
> unconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a
> universal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work in
> the first place.
>=20
> Alternative policies are NOT attacks on the network.

Just to be clear, Jorge, I wasn=E2=80=99t suggesting that unconfirmed =
transactions are part of any sort of global consensus. In fact, they =
very much AREN=E2=80=99T. Which is exactly why it is extremely dangerous =
to accept unconfirmed transactions as final unless you clearly have =
assessed the risks and it makes sense for the particular business use =
case.

- Eric Lombrozo

--Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=D7K5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7--