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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1YxW3l-0007yy-AO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 May 2015 07:47:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.102 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.102; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148102.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.102])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1YxW3i-0001oO-Bq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 May 2015 07:47:29 +0000
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t4R7lJ0u074681;
Wed, 27 May 2015 08:47:19 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t4R7lDTk095849
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Wed, 27 May 2015 08:47:16 +0100 (BST)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 03:47:13 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Message-ID: <20150527074713.GB22286@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAOG=w-sfiUQQGUh=RR55NU-TkAi1+2g3_Z+YP3dGDjp8zXYBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sfiUQQGUh=RR55NU-TkAi1+2g3_Z+YP3dGDjp8zXYBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 98a8d405-0444-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAUUFVQNAgsB AmMbW1xeVFp7WGQ7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRRhj AUJqNkJyfgBOfHc+ bU5gXT5SVBVyIUJ9
R1NUEWkCeGZhPWUC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4gGTgn ShYZAC5qEEsLQD84
IhBuNkQVGl0YOVkz Nl1pQ18ANxYZBwhT GV0vSDFYLhEaSjM2
AAVRUAYYDThXTD1H agAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YxW3i-0001oO-Bq
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Consensus-enforced transaction
replacement via sequence numbers
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: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:47:29 -0000
--kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 06:50:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Sequence numbers appear to have been originally intended as a mechanism f=
or
> transaction replacement within the context of multi-party transaction
> construction, e.g. a micropayment channel. The idea is that a participant
> can sign successive versions of a transaction, each time incrementing the
> sequence field by some amount. Relay nodes perform transaction replacement
> according to some policy rule making use of the sequence numbers, e.g.
> requiring sequence numbers in a replacement to be monotonically increasin=
g.
Can you provide a worked example of this in use? I think I see a major
flaw, but I'd like to see a worked example first.
Keep in mind that there's absolutely no reason to have pending
transactions in mempools until we actually expect them to be mined.
Equally this proposal is no more "consensus enforcement" than simply
increasing the fee (and possibly decreasing the absolute nLockTime) for
each replacement would be; increasing the fee for each mempool
replacement is a hard requirement as an anti-DoS anyway. (this was all
discussed on the mailing list two years ago when RBF was first proposed)
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000ec0c3a90baa52289171046469fe4a21dc5a0dac4cb758a9
--kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=2++E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--kORqDWCi7qDJ0mEj--
|
