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
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YLtCe-0007Ia-9c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:49:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.169 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f169.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YLtCd-0001W7-8i
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:49:08 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id k48so9879265wev.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:49:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.61.145 with SMTP id p17mr7020698wjr.35.1423745341192;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:49:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1-eogn58zC_eAs4qD4-1GaY4wtuXLoSJ-UEZGKgdXGFyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M1-eogn58zC_eAs4qD4-1GaY4wtuXLoSJ-UEZGKgdXGFyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:49:01 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dwuJCbN5mm8EEsAHmzoItbojQoc
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2YJxwVEocNXjc5cadcq6Wwed7vTLh_4zEX2ct7bTCz5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YLtCd-0001W7-8i
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:49:08 -0000
--047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Are you not counting collateralized multisignature notaries? Its an
> extended version of the Greenaddress.it model.
>
It makes unconfirmed transactions useless in the classical Bitcoin model.
Obviously if you introduce a trusted third party you can fix things, but
then you're back to having the disadvantages of centralised trust.
If unconfirmed payments become flaky enough that people stop using them,
then a portion of the Bitcoin community will find workarounds like trusted
third parties, trusted hardware, whatever and will just struggle one. Other
people will look at the new tradeoffs/complexity, and decide that Bitcoin
is no longer better for them than banks.
--047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Are you not counting collateraliz=
ed multisignature notaries? Its an extended version of the Greenaddress.it =
model.</p></blockquote><div>It makes unconfirmed transactions useless in th=
e classical Bitcoin model. Obviously if you introduce a trusted third party=
you can fix things, but then you're back to having the disadvantages o=
f centralised trust.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If unconfirmed payments b=
ecome flaky enough that people stop using them, then a portion of the Bitco=
in community will find workarounds like trusted third parties, trusted hard=
ware, whatever and will just struggle one. Other people will look at the ne=
w tradeoffs/complexity, and decide that Bitcoin is no longer better for the=
m than banks.</div></div></div></div>
--047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54--
|
