diff options
| author | Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> | 2015-02-22 04:06:13 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-02-22 12:06:22 +0000 |
| commit | 5e83e4d5fa9309570e5a9c5f9fae8f24603c344a (patch) | |
| tree | db3e03874bb5c4c52a41f530258687496d53f9db /57/a782e8cb126cc66e4c772b82c4b425fe95badc | |
| parent | 4d29970720dff9ced89555ed55d0623649cee91d (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-5e83e4d5fa9309570e5a9c5f9fae8f24603c344a.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-5e83e4d5fa9309570e5a9c5f9fae8f24603c344a.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
Diffstat (limited to '57/a782e8cb126cc66e4c772b82c4b425fe95badc')
| -rw-r--r-- | 57/a782e8cb126cc66e4c772b82c4b425fe95badc | 253 |
1 files changed, 253 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/57/a782e8cb126cc66e4c772b82c4b425fe95badc b/57/a782e8cb126cc66e4c772b82c4b425fe95badc new file mode 100644 index 000000000..464a2ae3a --- /dev/null +++ b/57/a782e8cb126cc66e4c772b82c4b425fe95badc @@ -0,0 +1,253 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1YPVIj-0004in-Pg + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 22 Feb 2015 12:06:22 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.217.177; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; + helo=mail-lb0-f177.google.com; +Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YPVIi-0002h6-B9 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 22 Feb 2015 12:06:21 +0000 +Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so13932859lbv.0 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Sun, 22 Feb 2015 04:06:14 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.112.198.66 with SMTP id ja2mr5424077lbc.39.1424606773943; + Sun, 22 Feb 2015 04:06:13 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.112.201.67 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 04:06:13 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.112.201.67 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 04:06:13 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTcr9C4uoXFfTJ6BEGHaw1a3dV_J=SE=fZbbpZRdTtD8tw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> + <CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJHLa0PkzG44JpuQoHVLUU8SR55LaJf5AwG=a7AjK2u7TAveOQ@mail.gmail.com> + <20150215212512.GR14804@nl.grid.coop> <54E11248.6090401@gmail.com> + <20150219085604.GT14804@nl.grid.coop> + <CABm2gDorEFNzzHH2bxpo6miv1H0RUhL9uAYX6gg2aW0wB1QDbw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAOG=w-uJFobZtkd8OoPnOJC3uqCOwjsqyfNWJTg3j3sJQn+wXQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJHLa0M4Tc7kiQVNmBfMBvSqFyrmHXdaNh7mF+crAdME5FUWHg@mail.gmail.com> + <CABm2gDpMagWHsBn1t_oLO2bESgD2NUpefYw-gePFaBCNmpXviQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJHLa0ObR32wg7TEJ2XHgZ=9=Z+yFsXjF3JCz+4d5mdp1=xu4Q@mail.gmail.com> + <CABr1YTcr9C4uoXFfTJ6BEGHaw1a3dV_J=SE=fZbbpZRdTtD8tw@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 04:06:13 -0800 +Message-ID: <CABr1YTefbYqqtx0fSm_GBASxE2Za9EGWOPM2A5X4PRxbVemyiw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> +To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34010b4a23f050fac1c39 +X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) +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 + (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.9 FUZZY_AMBIEN BODY: Attempt to obfuscate words in spam + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + -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: 1YPVIi-0002h6-B9 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 +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, 22 Feb 2015 12:06:22 -0000 + +--001a11c34010b4a23f050fac1c39 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +I should note that my proposal does require a change to the consensus +rules...but getting bitcoin to scale will require this no matter what. + +- Eric Lombrozo +On Feb 22, 2015 3:41 AM, "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote: + +> It seems to me we're confusing two completely different motivations for +> double-spending. One is the ability to replace a fee, the other is the +> ability to replace outputs. +> +> If the double-spend were to merely add or remove inputs (but keep at leas= +t +> one input in common, of course), it seems fairly safe to assume it's the +> former, a genuine fee replacement. Even allowing for things like coinjoin= +, +> none of the payees would really care either way. +> +> Conversely, if at least one of the inputs were kept but none of the +> outputs were, we can be confident it's the the latter. +> +> It is possible to build a wallet that always does the former when doing +> fee replacement by using another transaction to create an output with +> exactly the additional desired fee. +> +> If we can clearly distinguish these two cases then the fee replacement +> case can be handled by relaying both and letting miners pick one or the +> other while the output replacement case could be handled by rewarding +> everything to a miner (essentially all outputs are voided...made +> unredeemable...and all inputs are added to coinbase) if the miner include= +s +> the two conflicting transactions in the same block. +> +> Wouldn't this essentially solve the problem? +> +> - Eric Lombrozo +> On Feb 21, 2015 8:09 PM, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote: +> +>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wr= +ote: +>> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> +>> wrote: +>> >> This isn't some theoretical exercise. Like it or not many use +>> >> insecure 0-conf transactions for rapid payments. Deploying something +>> >> that makes 0-conf transactions unusable would have a wide, negative +>> >> impact on present day bitcoin payments, thus "scorched earth" +>> +>> > And maybe by maintaining first seen policies we're harming the system +>> > in the long term by encouraging people to widely deploy systems based +>> > on extremely weak assumptions. +>> +>> Lacking a coded, reviewed alternative, that's only a platitude. +>> Widely used 0-conf payments are where we're at today. Simply ceasing +>> the "maintaining [of] first seen policies" alone is simply not a +>> realistic option. The negative impact to today's userbase would be +>> huge. +>> +>> Instant payments need a security upgrade, yes. +>> +>> -- +>> Jeff Garzik +>> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist +>> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ +>> +>> +>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= +------ +>> Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server +>> from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards +>> with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & mor= +e +>> Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE +>> +>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D190641631&iu=3D/4140/ost= +g.clktrk +>> _______________________________________________ +>> Bitcoin-development mailing list +>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development +>> +> + +--001a11c34010b4a23f050fac1c39 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<p dir=3D"ltr">I should note that my proposal does require a change to the = +consensus rules...but getting bitcoin to scale will require this no matter = +what.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">- Eric Lombrozo</p> +<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 22, 2015 3:41 AM, "Eric Lombrozo&quo= +t; <<a href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>> w= +rote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma= +rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr"= +>It seems to me we're confusing two completely different motivations fo= +r double-spending. One is the ability to replace a fee, the other is the ab= +ility to replace outputs.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">If the double-spend were to merely add or remove inputs (but= + keep at least one input in common, of course), it seems fairly safe to ass= +ume it's the former, a genuine fee replacement. Even allowing for thing= +s like coinjoin, none of the payees would really care either way.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">Conversely, if at least one of the inputs were kept but none= + of the outputs were, we can be confident it's the the latter.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">It is possible to build a wallet that always does the former= + when doing fee replacement by using another transaction to create an outpu= +t with exactly the additional desired fee.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">If we can clearly distinguish these two cases then the fee r= +eplacement case can be handled by relaying both and letting miners pick one= + or the other while the output replacement case could be handled by rewardi= +ng everything to a miner (essentially all outputs are voided...made unredee= +mable...and all inputs are added to coinbase) if the miner includes the two= + conflicting transactions in the same block.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">Wouldn't this essentially solve the problem?</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">- Eric Lombrozo</p> +<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 21, 2015 8:09 PM, "Jeff Garzik"= + <<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay= +.com</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot= +e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">= +On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc>= + wrote:<br> +> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik <<a href=3D"mailto:jg= +arzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>> wrote:<br> +>> This isn't some theoretical exercise.=C2=A0 Like it or not man= +y use<br> +>> insecure 0-conf transactions for rapid payments.=C2=A0 Deploying s= +omething<br> +>> that makes 0-conf transactions unusable would have a wide, negativ= +e<br> +>> impact on present day bitcoin payments, thus "scorched earth&= +quot;<br> +<br> +> And maybe by maintaining first seen policies we're harming the sys= +tem<br> +> in the long term by encouraging people to widely deploy systems based<= +br> +> on extremely weak assumptions.<br> +<br> +Lacking a coded, reviewed alternative, that's only a platitude.<br> +Widely used 0-conf payments are where we're at today.=C2=A0 Simply ceas= +ing<br> +the "maintaining [of] first seen policies" alone is simply not a<= +br> +realistic option.=C2=A0 The negative impact to today's userbase would b= +e<br> +huge.<br> +<br> +Instant payments need a security upgrade, yes.<br> +<br> +--<br> +Jeff Garzik<br> +Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<br> +BitPay, Inc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D"= +_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a><br> +<br> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------= +---<br> +Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server<br> +from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards<br= +> +with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & mo= +re<br> +Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE<br= +> +<a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D190641631&iu= +=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam= +pad/clk?id=3D190641631&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</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> +</blockquote></div> +</blockquote></div> + +--001a11c34010b4a23f050fac1c39-- + + |