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
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <hozer@grid.coop>) id 1YN6nb-0003A4-5e
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:32:19 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from nl.grid.coop ([50.7.166.116])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1YN6na-0000xj-6V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:32:19 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000)
by nl.grid.coop with local; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 14:51:54 -0600
id 00000000000613CD.0000000054E106EA.000029B4
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 14:51:54 -0600
From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Message-ID: <20150215205154.GQ14804@nl.grid.coop>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
<7C171F0B-1EF8-4542-8E18-187B2E94DF14@bitsofproof.com>
<20150212074509.GC4254@savin.petertodd.org>
<8BFAFE6A-F85B-4B89-98A0-CBBCAA67B30B@bitsofproof.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8BFAFE6A-F85B-4B89-98A0-CBBCAA67B30B@bitsofproof.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1YN6na-0000xj-6V
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:32:19 -0000
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool contents?
>
>
>
> Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user service.
> In absence of better alternative, the interfaces used by a proprietary extension are usually the same as in P2P consensus.
>
> POW is used to figure the longest chain and until now broadcasted transactions were assumed the one and only.
> These simple rules ensure a consensus between the proprietary stack and the border router, and that is the consensus I referred to.
>
If a proprietary stack has problems with replace-by-fee then it's probably
succeptible to malicious attack because an attacker could just broadcast
one transaction to the network and then replace it when they are able to
mine a block themselves.
>
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the
> > one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must
> > go.
>
>
> You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting
> double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic .
>
|
