Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YMe0M-000819-7u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:34 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from hapkido.dreamhost.com ([66.33.216.122]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YMe0K-0004HM-Dp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:34 +0000 Received: from homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) by hapkido.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2B89757D for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 06:47:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7720320806B for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 06:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.9.1.130] (unknown [89.238.129.18]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jrn@jrn.me.uk) by homiemail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D27C3208063 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 06:47:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54DF5FF6.4010000@jrn.me.uk> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:18 +0000 From: Ross Nicoll User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> <356E7F6E-300A-4127-9885-2183FB1DE447@gmail.com> <54DCECE4.3020802@riseup.net> <54DCFBB5.3080202@gmail.com> <54DD003E.2060508@riseup.net> <54DD046B.3070507@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050505060006010909060304" X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [66.33.216.122 listed in list.dnswl.org] 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: 1YMe0K-0004HM-Dp 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:34 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050505060006010909060304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Arriving slightly late to the discussion, apologies. Personally I wouldn't have written that patch, but I know development of hostile patches happens out of sight, and if it can be written, we have to presume it will be written eventually. I'd have preferred a patch that only replaced non-final txes, which is the use-case I have for transaction replacement, but that's easy to add back in. I'm certainly not terribly convinced of the security of vanilla zero-confirmation transactions myself, for reasons including but not limited to this case. I also think it's important to understand that people do make irrational decisions, and trusting network security on everyone behaving perfectly rationally is not a workable model either. TLDR; me too Ross On 12/02/15 20:36, Allen Piscitello wrote: > You keep making moral judgements. Reality is, if you live in a world with > arsonists, you need to have a building that won't catch on fire, or has > fire extinguishers in place. Do not depend on arsonists ignoring you > forever as your security model. Penetration testing to know what > weaknesses exist, what limitations exist, and what can be improved is > essential. Keeping your head in the sand and hoping people choose to do > the right thing only ends one way. > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Justus Ranvier > wrote: > > On 02/12/2015 07:47 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote: > >>> Nothing will stop that. Bitcoin needs to deal with those issues, > >>> not stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist out of > >>> benevolence. This isn't a pet solution, but the rules of the > >>> protocol and what is realistically possible given the nature of > >>> distributed consensus. Relying on altruism is a recipe for > >>> failure. > > If there's a risk of fire burning down wooden buildings, pass out fire > extinguishers and smoke detectors, not matches. > > The latter makes one an arsonist. > >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, >> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is >> your >> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought >> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a >> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, > sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your > hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a > look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU31/yAAoJEJFC5fflM8475YIIAI7nxgxUdkKiMePMqtvPOi25 U+WCxjvIK0ZRTAV30POC7fKLT2mK0gPusSS7LtNJpPKvpC98VcSD5HWE49K80Yo9 9+QI7X7xBau1jjLo+27uOex0bJ6JwP1DSMpC12AQbMmi4FnyG+M5FMkr5/OnSxeF cd4lT2UF7yTJPRy0+A9LwertL5Sv1yeOJJ9jtWuXgixapmHN+1Zm2VkGnur55V64 vnonlixlUMwnZNxDVoRhjTWm1P/lmCejvmvTRvcBomUlAEgRQF4TtF4YMBYXS97S 5WYrxOHLgTfTWr3FJuOnd+CVBRgZGw3u30ktaSErelyMG19lJOusBPdHTQFkV30= =eWPj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------050505060006010909060304 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Arriving slightly late to the discussion, apologies.

Personally I wouldn't have written that patch, but I know development of hostile patches happens out of sight, and if it can be written, we have to presume it will be written eventually. I'd have preferred a patch that only replaced non-final txes, which is the use-case I have for transaction replacement, but that's easy to add back in.

I'm certainly not terribly convinced of the security of vanilla zero-confirmation transactions myself, for reasons including but not limited to this case. I also think it's important to understand that people do make irrational decisions, and trusting network security on everyone behaving perfectly rationally is not a workable model either.

TLDR; me too

Ross

On 12/02/15 20:36, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> You keep making moral judgements.=A0 Reality is, if you live in a world with
> arsonists, you need to have a building that won't catch on fire, or has
> fire extinguishers in place.=A0 Do not depend on arsonists ignoring you
> forever as your security model.=A0 Penetration testing to know what
> weaknesses exist, what limitations exist, and what can be improved is
> essential.=A0 Keeping your head in the sand and hoping people choose to do
> the right thing only ends one way.
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
> wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2015 07:47 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> >>> Nothing will stop that.=A0 Bitcoin needs to deal with those issues,
> >>> not stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist out of
> >>> benevolence. This isn't a pet solution, but the rules of the
> >>> protocol and what is realistically possible given the nature of
> >>> distributed consensus.=A0 Relying on altruism is = a recipe for
> >>> failure.
>
> If there's a risk of fire burning down wooden buildings, pass out fire
> extinguishers and smoke detectors, not matches.
>
> The latter makes one an arsonist.
>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----
>> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
>> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
>> your
>> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
>> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
>> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourcefor= ge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/l= ists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.n= et
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/l= ists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU31/yAAoJEJFC5fflM8475YIIAI7nxgxUdkKiMePMqtvPOi25
U+WCxjvIK0ZRTAV30POC7fKLT2mK0gPusSS7LtNJpPKvpC98VcSD5HWE49K80Yo9
9+QI7X7xBau1jjLo+27uOex0bJ6JwP1DSMpC12AQbMmi4FnyG+M5FMkr5/OnSxeF
cd4lT2UF7yTJPRy0+A9LwertL5Sv1yeOJJ9jtWuXgixapmHN+1Zm2VkGnur55V64
vnonlixlUMwnZNxDVoRhjTWm1P/lmCejvmvTRvcBomUlAEgRQF4TtF4YMBYXS97S
5WYrxOHLgTfTWr3FJuOnd+CVBRgZGw3u30ktaSErelyMG19lJOusBPdHTQFkV30=3D =3DeWPj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------050505060006010909060304--