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
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <robbak@robbak.com>) id 1UedQI-0001pz-2S
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 21 May 2013 03:39:38 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of robbak.com
designates 209.85.128.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.128.181; envelope-from=robbak@robbak.com;
helo=mail-ve0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com ([209.85.128.181])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UedQG-0003ku-RK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 21 May 2013 03:39:38 +0000
Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id pb11so88549veb.26
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 20 May 2013 20:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=LtFpI/gVy1CS7vV5IjWmM/lyCzRbUFaVZZy87bWUsyw=;
b=KKPnAHBjcTA6IVq+I2oLkS1gpzGhkl8Ttk9LskegmgUSpTRMWPaqWdcrvSllx2zdSH
684JMYxVKSSdlmei+Ue69MkdR68K9oP5ZX8zKKqnv9D9pk9XDd/v+aCksYHBbbYkDPdx
yyiOeXYR+BmQ1A0cnSBw15t5MNXk3HwXqz5jObUYJS5rv/V+cRrQGXJrca9NVeZxhOkO
EEJLa1W/g+eCyiwvzH39cWBQtNf3ycnHcO2RUjR4vxxWlKDmMAE+RnP0PZl4mOu4PjZI
TlXQZV8xz7Xp0eOoyQqqoJNWwy+xJXN/AwMsMOWOns/eLxXQueaGnX244ULL2zjOImip
DI0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.75.46 with SMTP id z14mr144267vev.52.1369107571058; Mon,
20 May 2013 20:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.88.172 with HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 20:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1inofLkfcb3q+_yBd6ZX0OGs-mNbcmu9+ECwn5wVD7jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <519AC3A8.1020306@quinnharris.me>
<CA+i0-i_+Tes+ePRqmDGEXDQ_L=S5y8gHBKk77zaLgTGOS3OMyA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjmXyLkgfwzC8h+ZFkmyUf6nzbGo0oAWR9nsJOTOfOXEg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1inofLkfcb3q+_yBd6ZX0OGs-mNbcmu9+ECwn5wVD7jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:39:30 +1000
Message-ID: <CA+i0-i-8DFUBLpjtpBGrarH72vqX5FgQGkGUYb-Zz7efHehuwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Backhaus <robbak@robbak.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228e426eebe904dd32325a
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6T+/ryEQjBipIKbyoqW5kAtULSiJBeqUGFYnHHRuedpvkDKi/LsUy+Q4zVT++/hItm+ZL
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1UedQG-0003ku-RK
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double Spend Notification
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, 21 May 2013 03:39:38 -0000
--089e01228e426eebe904dd32325a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
That's good - what I had taken away from the replace-by-fee discussions was
that it was finally decided.
My opinion is that we should be doing what we can to make 0-confs as
reliable as possible - which will always be 'not very', but a solid system
to notify on attempted double-spends is a good start.
I'd like to know how Peter Todd's experiment with the 2BTC reward has gone.
On 21 May 2013 13:27, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Indeed, that has been proposed but it's a dumb idea and I'm very sceptical
> it will go anywhere. Certainly no decision was made. The arguments for it
> are based on some quite faulty thinking about economics. Double spend
> notifications have been proposed a long time ago, I believe Matt has
> indicated some interest in implementing them and that is the right way to
> go.
> On 20 May 2013 18:57, "Pieter Wuille" <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus <robbak@robbak.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so
>> no
>> > one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a
>> larger
>> > fee, it will be considered to be the valid one, and the first one
>> dropped,
>> > as long as the first one has not been confirmed. This makes undoing a
>> > mistaken transaction possible.
>>
>> This has been suggested, but I know of no such decision having been made.
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
>> New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring
>> service
>> that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
>> browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
>> and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
--089e01228e426eebe904dd32325a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">That's good - what I had taken away from the replace-b=
y-fee discussions was that it was finally decided.<div><br></div><div>My op=
inion is that we should be doing what we can to make 0-confs as reliable as=
possible - which will always be 'not very', but a solid system to =
notify on attempted double-spends is a good start.</div>
<div><br></div><div style>I'd like to know how Peter Todd's experim=
ent with the 2BTC reward has gone.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 21 May 201=
3 13:27, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net=
" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
<p dir=3D"ltr">Indeed, that has been proposed but it's a dumb idea and =
I'm very sceptical it will go anywhere.=A0 Certainly no decision was ma=
de. The arguments for it are based on some quite faulty thinking about econ=
omics. Double spend notifications have been proposed a long time ago, I bel=
ieve Matt has indicated some interest in implementing them and that is the =
right way to go.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div>On 20 May 2013 18:57, "Pieter Wui=
lle" <<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">=
pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"></div>
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus <<a href=3D"mailto:robb=
ak@robbak.com" target=3D"_blank">robbak@robbak.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so=
no<br>
> one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a lar=
ger<br>
> fee, it will be considered to be the valid one, and the first one drop=
ped,<br>
> as long as the first one has not been confirmed. This makes undoing a<=
br>
> mistaken transaction possible.<br>
<br>
This has been suggested, but I know of no such decision having been made.<b=
r>
<br>
--<br>
Pieter<br>
<br></div></div><div>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt<br>
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service=
<br>
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your<br>
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic<br=
>
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! <a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrel=
ic_d2d_may" target=3D"_blank">http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--089e01228e426eebe904dd32325a--
|
