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 <frankf44@gmail.com>) id 1Z63UB-0002i8-GW
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:06:03 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.49; envelope-from=frankf44@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f49.google.com; 
Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z63U9-00080y-Pv
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:06:03 +0000
Received: by oigx81 with SMTP id x81so88543005oig.1
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.194.9 with SMTP id s9mr4564357oif.39.1434747956380; Fri,
	19 Jun 2015 14:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.56.165 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6716121.uS5ifrNBZv@crushinator>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<20150619154054.GA13498@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAMK47c84w=2c9y8MKHTzFf05DmKXz74a=iFViA-oZ1uRDZCAWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6716121.uS5ifrNBZv@crushinator>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:05:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CALxyHsVKUJtskOtnqS4_R0U=vwLhVzC+0i6Ya0QyT8T644dYHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Frank Flores <frankf44@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dc334484bbe0518e54af6
X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/)
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
	(frankf44[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
	digit (frankf44[at]gmail.com)
	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: 1Z63U9-00080y-Pv
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
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: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:06:03 -0000

--001a113dc334484bbe0518e54af6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doublespend attack
detection broken with this kind of irresponsible behavior?

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:

> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:
> > If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will
> actively
> > harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or
> POS
> > merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.
>
> Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin
> payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the
> irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks
> deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from
> a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The
> reason we don't yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is
> because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible "enough,"
> but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it
> should not be relied upon.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>



-- 
*MONEY IS OVER!*
                                IF YOU WANT IT
<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian

--001a113dc334484bbe0518e54af6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doub=
lespend attack detection broken with this kind of irresponsible behavior?</=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 1=
9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Matt Whitlock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:b=
ip@mattwhitlock.name" target=3D"_blank">bip@mattwhitlock.name</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18=
 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:<br>
&gt; If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will acti=
vely<br>
&gt; harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online o=
r POS<br>
&gt; merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.<br>
<br>
Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin payme=
nts, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the irreversibility o=
f a transaction until it has been buried several blocks deep in the chain. =
Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from a mutually trusted=
 co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The reason we don&#39;t =
yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is because, to date, zero-=
conf transactions have been irreversible &quot;enough,&quot; but this has o=
nly been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it should not be reli=
ed upon.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div style=3D"text-align:left"><b><span styl=
e=3D"font-size:xx-large">MONEY IS OVER!</span></b></div><div><div style=3D"=
text-align:left"><span style=3D"font-size:x-small">=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/" target=3D"_b=
lank">IF YOU WANT IT</a></span></div>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>The causes of my servit=
ude can be traced to the tyranny of money.<br>-Serj Tankian</div></div>
</div>

--001a113dc334484bbe0518e54af6--