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
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Z5xxE-0005Ba-Mz
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:11:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.149.75 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.149.75; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail149075.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net ([62.13.149.75])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Z5xxD-0006Um-Hn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:11:40 +0000
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5JFBXNm071701;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:11:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5JFBREK080205
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:11:29 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:11:27 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: justusranvier@riseup.net
Message-ID: <20150619151127.GA11263@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
<c2a392703d02e1d674a029c60deb6d94@riseup.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c2a392703d02e1d674a029c60deb6d94@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 76c28eb8-1695-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdwsUEkAaAgsB AmMbWlJeUVx7WmM7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRRl7 cGx8J2JyfwVEeHs+ ZEVjXnQVW0Ipd04o
EEZJFGsPYHphaTUa TUkOcAdJcANIexZF O1F8UScOLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDMGQE QBcGVTUmBgUIQSw5
KxEqYlABGEJZKEgq NVIqVBcSIlocBwA2
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z5xxD-0006Um-Hn
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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 15:11:40 -0000
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:00:57PM +0000, justusranvier@riseup.net wrote:
> On 2015-06-19 10:39, Peter Todd wrote:
>=20
> Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing
> power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions=
=20
> with
> me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has will be replaced if=
=20
> a
> conflicting transaction pays a higher fee. There are no requirements=
=20
> for
> the replacement transaction to pay addresses that were paid by the
> previous transaction.
>=20
>=20
> Intentional fraud is a bad thing to add to a financial protocol.
>=20
> A user who creates conflicting transactions, one that pays someone else=
=20
> and another which does not pay them, and broadcasts both of them, has=20
> just self-incriminated themselves by producing prima facie evidence of=20
> fraud.
Depends.
If you ask me to pay you 1BTC at address A and I create tx1 that pays
1BTC to A1 and 2BTC of chain to C, what's wrong with me creating tx2
that still pays 1BTC to A, but now only pays 1.999BTC to C? I'm not
defrauding you, I'm just reducing the value of my change address to pay
a higher fee. Similarly if I now need to pay Bob 0.5BTC, I can create
tx3 paying 1BTC to A, 0.5BTC to B, and 1.498BTC to C.
Yet from the point of view of an external observer they have no idea why
the transaction outputs reduced in size, nor any way of knowing if fraud
did or did not occur.
Equally, maybe you tell me "Actually, just give me 0.5BTC to cancel out
that debt", in which case I'm not breaking any contract at all by giving
you less money than I first promised - the contract has changed.
Again, none of this can or should be observable to anyone other than the
parties directly involved.
> It may be the case that since Bitcoin spans multiple legal jurisdictions=
=20
> and can be use anonymously that the victims of such fraud can not rely=20
> on legal recourse, and it may also be the case that proof of work is how=
=20
> Bitcoin deals with the aforementioned factors, but regardless=20
> un-prosecutable fraud is still fraud and anyone who encourages it should=
=20
> be recognied as a bad actors.
>=20
> Committing vandalism and encouraging fraud to prove a point may be=20
> something the network can't stop on a technical level, but there's no=20
> reason not to call it out for what it is.
What do you think of Bitcoin XT then? It relays double-spends, which
makes it much easier to get double-spends to miners than before. In
particular you see a lot of zero-fee transactions being replaced by
fee-paying transactions, relayed through Bitcoin XT nodes and then
mined. Is that encouraging fraud?
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000003932458055c68d4ee2b6d68441c4764efbdf6b0b1683717
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=73ki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM--
|
