MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:04:22 -0800
From: bfd@cock.lu
To: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CAAcC9ysdaK1DqBBRvBM=7uHFnM7WW23R61v68xrAMj3rWJfqdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <71d822e413ac457a530e1c367811cc24@cock.lu>
	<77b6dd25-0603-a0bd-6a9e-38098e5cb19d@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<74aeb4760316b59a3db56c0d16d11f28@cock.lu>
	<CACq0ZD7XT_h8ADptKA0uBT7617fvvgh3uGndkc08RZUSQM2yQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<f335731c-3928-6694-5ed8-aa1999b401f1@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<CAAcC9ysdaK1DqBBRvBM=7uHFnM7WW23R61v68xrAMj3rWJfqdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <045843cb19f03888da10d2954cd1c685@cock.lu>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	nbvfour@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Committed bloom filters for improved wallet
 performance and SPV security
Precedence: list

You might as well replace Bitcoin with a system where these parties
sign transactions and skip mining altogether, it would have the same
properties and be significantly more effient.


On 2017-01-04 23:06, Chris Priest wrote:
> On 1/3/17, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> There are plenty, more sane options. If you can't run your own 
>> full-node
>> as a merchant (trivial), maybe co-use a wallet-service with 
>> centralized
>> verification (maybe use two of them), I guess Copay would be one of
>> those wallets (as an example). Use them in watch-only mode.
> 
> The best way is to connect to the mempool of each miner and check to
> see if they have your txid in their mempool.
> 
> https://www.antpool.com/api/is_in_mempool?txid=334847bb...
> https://www.f2pool.com/api/is_in_mempool?txid=334847bb...
> https://bw.com/api/is_in_mempool?txid=334847bb...
> https://bitfury.com/api/is_in_mempool?txid=334847bb...
> https://btcc.com/api/is_in_mempool?txid=334847bb...
> 
> If each of these services return "True", and you know those services
> so not engage in RBF, then you can assume with great confidence that
> your transaction will be in the next block, or in a block very soon.
> If any one of those services return "False", then you must assume that
> it is possible that there is a double spend floating around, and that
> you should wait to see if that tx gets confirmed. The problem is that
> not every pool runs such a service to check the contents of their
> mempool...
> 
> This is an example of mining centralization increasing the security of
> zero confirm. If more people mined, this method will not work as well
> because it would require you to call the API of hundreds of different
> potential block creators.