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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Xb63Y-00018b-E8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:02:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.218.45 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.218.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oi0-f45.google.com;
Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xb63X-0005nm-EZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:02:20 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id i138so3420663oig.32
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.20.146 with SMTP id n18mr26446884obe.26.1412593333945;
Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.86.105 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSRnnjPdW0oHCkE=deLLv8w0z0syGeeXjb1EaF1xLrtJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5431CD8D.7050508@certimix.com>
<CAAS2fgQ-MrmBGjcuqYdvfs0g2b6+vAOVR3sUCCyQy386CY8EDA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKJtGK2hdO+eTv6Hf9OhdetMmgTARHwQmmdEt_K489QFJOatPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSRnnjPdW0oHCkE=deLLv8w0z0syGeeXjb1EaF1xLrtJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 13:02:13 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AXIMu4hwA5LoHoqp19eZ2ADSFqg
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2_9tRGpZ4gySHvohy0g2PsaQF9u+-tZ-bmn8JtgweihA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83a13fe1c9d70504bf035f
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1Xb63X-0005nm-EZ
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack
(FRONT)
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: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:02:20 -0000
--e89a8f83a13fe1c9d70504bf035f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> the block size being lower than the instant offered demand (there is
> always a backlog) are both things which address the concern of this thread.
> :)
I'm skeptical such a situation can ever be stable. People have no incentive
to create a transaction that will remain stuck in the backlog forever,
regardless of the effect it may have on the rest of the system.
If someone invents a business model in which lots of payments are made,
with fees, but that only clear probabilistically, perhaps such a situation
could occur. But otherwise I think we have to assume that people won't make
transactions that will lose the competition game, and instant demand would
only ever be roughly equal to supply.
--e89a8f83a13fe1c9d70504bf035f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">the block size being lower than the=C2=A0instant=
offered demand (there is always a backlog) are both things=C2=A0which addr=
ess the concern of this thread. :)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm =
skeptical such a situation can ever be stable. People have no incentive to =
create a transaction that will remain stuck in the backlog forever, regardl=
ess of the effect it may have on the rest of the system.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>If someone invents a business model in which lots of payments are ma=
de, with fees, but that only clear probabilistically, perhaps such a situat=
ion could occur. But otherwise I think we have to assume that people won=
9;t make transactions that will lose the competition game, and instant dema=
nd would only ever be roughly equal to supply.</div></div></div></div>
--e89a8f83a13fe1c9d70504bf035f--
|
