1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Xiwdx-0005Qv-DY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:36:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xiwdw-000292-Qr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:36:21 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id tp5so5750821ieb.15
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.66.179 with SMTP id g19mr1366221igt.8.1414463775536; Mon,
27 Oct 2014 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.159.3 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <544EFEE8.4000000@thinlink.com>
References: <544EA3D7.2050901@thinlink.com> <544EA85E.8010400@bluematt.me>
<544EFEE8.4000000@thinlink.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:36:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTW9uWewWbdRj6SCCAKU0D30jFiukDL9YPeG4n8LVwoYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1Xiwdw-000292-Qr
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] DS Deprecation Window
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: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:36:21 -0000
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> You're right, thanks. Without double-spend relay, miner won't know that
> some txes conflict with anything.
Even with that, the miner cannot tell, his only safe option is to
include no transactions at all.
Consider a malicious miner can concurrently flood all other miners
with orthogonal double spends (which he doesn't mine himself). These
other miners will all be spending some amount of their time mining on
these transactions before realizing others consider them
double-spends.
|
