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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tomh@thinlink.com>) id 1Wx5JM-0007Et-Pw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:09:16 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wx5JL-0006PK-Cx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:09:16 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id g10so158957pdj.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=eXWnXtRATRaNDSDWwiD7fIAT8PkrgmRNRa9oCXuRxEw=;
b=EZOdNodBLV8I/XhoiQJ4n+4lXCmZm+VSOcRXi0OSAZl4iAOHJNXXfTmXnIi4ugC4nd
DAe/yymdshCh9I3HnrS8hIfKgW0i6yiS0Ap4YcrKilO1OMgcgvOb8UlN6FKe+xdH8FxF
AM5Mp55neEiZrxjxMA6b98bWt/9LogbVumEm+g6iW9UHEaUPMfF+sQYNTt/6OGD/GBcf
wyM11xVZX6riDXFolehwE0dPxq5qfPSqyI5wOZJLIHMeea0lPWktllzS4KUqnJW3kDYW
d+nwNBl3iX0aj0NxNajFlCOoQQggwhKEOkuZWkcUgO+TIHcQq6KAR8bV2qqdgyOxdGcT
IjVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkk3noZFVjfMmlVPRV649rHt1/fvfQwQetrOsrKyW8kj7xLDC+DZmCACXwNi5fcX1Gbse38
X-Received: by 10.68.171.193 with SMTP id aw1mr36296485pbc.117.1403056889608;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-6-44-248.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.6.44.248])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ox3sm470099pbb.88.2014.06.17.19.01.28
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53A0F2FD.7010605@thinlink.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:33 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAKrJrGOBSiY5V59eko6g796j3wh9V9ZLjPbyHeS5=zyX6j3Wdw@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP0Euc1mPhRc9e41tU4zMDrWesvVyiBpAPq6M3m7K=aU=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFDyEXgKpbE4WGAqROJ4J1UST=tXWgfn7uKhRO_tngJfVK_Czw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFDyEXgKpbE4WGAqROJ4J1UST=tXWgfn7uKhRO_tngJfVK_Czw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
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 [209.85.192.169 listed in list.dnswl.org]
X-Headers-End: 1Wx5JL-0006PK-Cx
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol
backwards compatible proto buffer extension
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: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:09:16 -0000
On 6/16/2014 8:09 AM, Daniel Rice wrote:
> What if we solved doublespends like this: If a node receives 2
> transactions that use the same input, they can put both of them into
> the new block as a proof of double spend, but the bitcoins are not
> sent to the outputs of either transactions. They are instead treated
> like a fee and given to the block solver node. This gives miners the
> needed incentive and tools to end doublespends instead of being forced
> to favor one transaction over the other.
Before considering a hard fork with unpredictable effects on the
uncertainty window, it would be interesting to look at a soft fork that
would directly target the goal of reducing the uncertainty window, like
treating locally-detected double-spends aged > T as invalid (see earlier
message "A statistical consensus rule for reducing 0-conf double-spend
risk").
If anything is worth a soft fork, wouldn't reducing the double-spend
uncertainty window by an order of magnitude be in the running?
Reducing the reasons that transactions don't get relayed, which actually
seems to have a shot of happening pretty soon, would also make this kind
of thing work better.
|
