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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YxKFD-0004KU-Ub
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 26 May 2015 19:10:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.174; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YxKFD-0006Md-8C
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 26 May 2015 19:10:31 +0000
Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so67992512igb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 26 May 2015 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.17.17 with SMTP id z17mr37277666ioi.76.1432667425992;
Tue, 26 May 2015 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.147.213 with HTTP; Tue, 26 May 2015 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5564B33D.3070107@thinlink.com>
References: <20150526051305.GA23502@savin.petertodd.org>
<5564B33D.3070107@thinlink.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 19:10:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSEW9RjZ-=-XE8AkdToHjjAyzBfW6X7JjFtUbppcExbDw@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: 1YxKFD-0006Md-8C
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee
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, 26 May 2015 19:10:32 -0000
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
> It's not difficult to
> imagine real-world consequences to not having contributed to the
> transaction.
I'm having a hard time. Can you help me understand a specific case
where this makes a difference.
It appears to be a gratuitous requirement; if I have another unused
input that happens to be larger by the required fee-- why not just use
it?
The inherent malleability of signatures makes it unreliable to depend
on the signature content of a transaction until its good and buried,
regardless. And an inability to replace an input means you could not
RBF for additional fees without taking change in more cases; there
ought to be a benefit to that.
|
