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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Y7obP-0007Cg-DF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.171; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y7obN-00078l-MP
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z20so1477304igj.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 09:04:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.107.83 with SMTP id c19mr63294843icp.48.1420391064335;
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 09:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.16.30 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:04:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54A95179.2070200@jrn.me.uk>
References: <54A95179.2070200@jrn.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 17:04:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSw=Goibe2LkXsEH5xjyftjQq4FxJh-dhaP_N5ea21ugQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
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: 1Y7obN-00078l-MP
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Re-enabling simple tx replacement
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, 04 Jan 2015 17:04:31 -0000
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I've been looking at atomic cross-chain trading (
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading ) between the
> Bitcoin and Dogecoin blockchains, and have a mostly functional
> prototype. However as it stands if the refund transaction is relayed
> before the actual spend transaction, it "blocks" the legitimate spend
> transaction from being accepted into the memory pool.
Unless there is a serious bug that I am not aware of this is not the
case. The unlocked transaction is not relayable and will not be
mempooled (well, until right before it locks).
> I've drafted a patch for this
> https://github.com/rnicoll/bitcoin/commit/e668d36607f008990ccaac7275e463a6efdd9b5a
> but have not yet raised a PR, as historically this has lead to a lot of
> discussion in Github which is better suited to this mailing list.
>
> I'm therefore looking for feedback while I continue testing that patch,
> and any comments would be welcomed.
This appears to have absolutely no protection against denial of
service, it seems to me that a single user can rapidly update their
transaction and exhaust the relay bandwidth of the entire network.
|
