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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1Z5zRD-0000zt-Od
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:46:43 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.43])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5zRC-0000rH-20
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:46:43 +0000
Received: from resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.110])
by resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id iGkt1q0032PT3Qt01GmcgJ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:46:36 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0])
by resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id iGmb1q00L4eLRLv01GmcFe; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:46:36 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:46:35 -0400
Message-ID: <2285442.evbbAUJO17@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.18.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <83A7C606-B601-47D2-BE10-2A1412D97514@gmail.com>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
<1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator>
<83A7C606-B601-47D2-BE10-2A1412D97514@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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 [69.252.207.43 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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: 1Z5zRC-0000rH-20
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
justusranvier@riseup.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 16:46:43 -0000
Even if you could prove "intent to pay," this would be almost useless. =
I can sincerely intend to do a lot of things, but this doesn't mean I'l=
l ever actually do them.
I am in favor of more zero-confirmation transactions being reversed / d=
ouble-spent. Bitcoin users largely still believe that accepting zero-co=
nf transactions is safe, and evidently it's going to take some harsh le=
ssons in reality to correct this belief.
On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:42 am, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should exp=
licitly define one rather than relying on =E2=80=9Cprima facie=E2=80=9D=
assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence=
of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay=E2=80=A6
>=20
>=20
> > On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> =
wrote:
> >=20
> > On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranvier@riseup.net wrote=
:
> >> I'd also like to note that "prima facie" doesn't mean "always", it=
means
> >> that "the default assumption, unless proven otherwise."
> >=20
> > Why would you automatically assume fraud by default? Shouldn't the =
null hypothesis be the default? Without any information one way or anot=
her, you ought to make *no assumption* about the fraudulence or non-fra=
udulence of any given double-spend.
>
|
