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
|
Return-Path: <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69478103D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:16:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com (mail-vk0-f52.google.com
[209.85.213.52])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 845DDA7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:16:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a188so204237401vkc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:16:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=mevs-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=8cUbF62+IVdv1Yk9xpue3tlNfBkf2BdFyd+geYOf+Gs=;
b=uFq0F/9NV6vt6Jy/G5ZEKC+hlo9fxV6m5fpRkli/uU85L1XIi+FE7UiOiqIQV22q6W
x8+XDOi3wcnXsy62WAHsRKHdPcjnJMxzAcCVvQWycE8yjwkf4wghiHir6Xb8PG9ssxzx
FTr8aUl7dOgP9ZtT7VFKIRR5xbvBGeZ45P1yo6Cl6sdjfmPtVPWsfrPGOZ93wKbVSRSp
Bh2bRGTvE8Q/n58wQaljx1D+h5q/sqIAu9DShANsv5ebnl+VA3Yzn6Yt3KpFXYwEytqP
OcWsmQxT4LghfcJt7aVUXpRaK97gP9Xo9HKb+s4TI6Ny/y/WuDrSJJiZZwQ6Gha/3T7m
Nm9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
bh=8cUbF62+IVdv1Yk9xpue3tlNfBkf2BdFyd+geYOf+Gs=;
b=Yc9WVPtWTzVNxU5tQRFu9yKYTn32SwtmDFaTgE7+ah7xOu8+31y+x9igWSIF7a9DN0
fODvsdtSFCiORwdKTeGf/qhoFpd3vzmpOvFirOJhyWa9LO69qMkCbiQczt4ByZTAH4EH
vya4taocOHGK03Ud2Sx+hF+EYLvxCYO9HIKKBL8OqNLjgKvR5LVyw8UTbzg5t6TKVtVf
koznkzTnCLw1dKAouKhIaQAz2AEg5nI2oiVbPWiRmf1IZg3R3KM1nsVzeQOjdSqlvBCy
NivRiXRPx0gfke6XiN3MVgPTt4u15VHBX6ia4VUHCjHnqY65OQ+jZ7udusAr+Ljn4QM1
X3Jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGCEg0Kbqh/VLca1+bc6Znd11emfWQ8Fl2VElWtAlZCp57lJbjcr1j0Fzq/JS3xar4E+qFoXzUizHOQ1JVeZmAEYuKpg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.44.77 with SMTP id s74mr40619591vks.4.1451474182091; Wed,
30 Dec 2015 03:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.78.12 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:16:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAODYVYf764XafVsbnVnYgsYZtWwKu4Q3cwzL1B=GVWUFjZ5TWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:12:58 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:16:24 -0000
--001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
That looks very interesting. But is effectively blocking old clients from
seeing transactions really safe? After all, such transactions are still
confirmed on the new chain. A person might try to send a similar
transaction several times, perhaps with increasing fees in an attempt to
get it to confirm and end up paying someone several times.
Maybe we could require the tx version number to be increased as well so
transactions sent from old clients would never confirm? Perhaps your code
already includes this idea, I need to look at it more closely.
--001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>That looks very interesting. But is effectively block=
ing old clients=20
from seeing transactions really safe? After all, such transactions are=20
still confirmed on the new chain. A person might try to send a similar=20
transaction several times, perhaps with increasing fees in an attempt to
get it to confirm and end up paying someone several times.<br><br></div>Ma=
ybe we could require the tx version number to be increased as well so trans=
actions sent from old clients would never confirm? Perhaps your code alread=
y includes this idea, I need to look at it more closely.<br></div>
--001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e--
|
