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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <kanzure@gmail.com>) id 1YPXT4-0003ph-7W
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 22 Feb 2015 14:25:10 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=kanzure@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YPXT3-0007HA-5a
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 22 Feb 2015 14:25:10 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id nt9so31539033obb.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 22 Feb 2015 06:25:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.133.174 with SMTP id pd14mr4479606oeb.79.1424615103749;
Sun, 22 Feb 2015 06:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.22.7 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 06:25:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTHuD1WuV_mVeSD-TaFszVms=hogUTL2bNc7YgNDyhVOoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTGBVdMX2RkuXNhkJ38XRM6DgAj+OmQTfHWuVF=emD-06Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20150222123428.GA6570@savin.petertodd.org>
<CALqxMTHuD1WuV_mVeSD-TaFszVms=hogUTL2bNc7YgNDyhVOoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:25:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CABaSBayPgo5ZFMjv=z-WG4akJ23HV7S0rcw_01izzEetknVrCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-)
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
(kanzure[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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
0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YPXT3-0007HA-5a
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes
double-spend (Re: 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 14:25:10 -0000
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical
> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something
> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the
> current weaker 0-conf transactions.
Scenario: Users are using some system in a way that the system was not
intended to be used. Let me also further constrain the scenario and
suggest that the function (pretend that means instantaneous confirmed
transactions) that the user wants is impossible. So in this scenario,
is it your job as some developer to change the system to do something
it wasn't designed to do? I mean, you certainly weren't the one
telling them they should accept zero confirmation transactions. Also,
I make no claims as to whether this scenario maps accurately to the
current topic.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
|
