From: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup•net>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:11:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DCECE4.3020802@riseup.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <356E7F6E-300A-4127-9885-2183FB1DE447@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3595 bytes --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/2015 05:24 PM, Oleg Andreev wrote:
>
>> I think that is a misdirection on your part. The point of
>> replace-by-fee is to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable.
>> Currently people can "get away" with 0-confirms but it's only
>> because most people arent actively double spending, and when they
>> do it is for higher value targets. Double spend attacks are
>> happening a lot more frequently than is being admitted here,
>> according to Peter from work with various clients.
>>
>> Like single address reuse, people have gotten used to something
>> which is bad. Generally accepting 0-conf is also a bad idea(tm)
>> and instant confirmation solutions should be sought elsewhere.
>> There are already interesting solutions and concepts:
>> greenaddress for example, and CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY micropayment
>> channels for example. Rather than supporting and promoting risky
>> 0-confirms, we need to spend time on better alternative solutions
>> that will work for everyone and not during the honeymoon phase
>> where attackers are fewer.
>
> Here's value-free assessment of the issue here:
>
> 1. Zero-conf txs are unsafe. 2. We'd all want to have a safer
> instant payments solution if possible. 3. As a social artifact,
> today zeroconf txs happen to work for some people in some
> situations. 4. Replace-by-fee will break #3 and probably hasten
> development of #2.
>
> The discussion boils down to whether we should make #2 happen
> sooner by breaking remnants of #3 sooner.
>
> I personally would rather not break anything, but work as fast as
> possible on #2 so no matter when and how #3 becomes utterly broken,
> we have a better solution. This implies that I also don't want to
> waste time debating with Peter Todd and others. I want to be ready
> with a working tool when zeroconf completely fails (with that patch
> or for some other reasons).
>
> TL;DR: those who are against the patch are better off building a
> decentralized clearing network rather than wasting time on debates.
> When we have such network, we might all want this patch to be used
> for all the reasons Peter has already outlined.
You've left out of the discussion that many (or all) proposed
solutions for 2 either reduce privacy, or security, or both.
That fact should not be ignored or swept under the rug.
There's also no mention of the degree to which child-pays-for-parent
achieves the stated aims of the original proposal (clearing mempool of
stuck transactions, increasing payee assurance of conformation)
without introducing incentives to double spend or forcing people into
privacy/security sacrifices.
- --
Support online privacy by using email encryption whenever possible.
Learn how here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bakOKJFtB-k
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=ony0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 14416 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-12 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-12 6:47 Peter Todd
2015-02-12 7:23 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-12 7:45 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-12 8:27 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-12 8:49 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-12 9:01 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-15 20:51 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2015-02-12 8:16 ` Alex Mizrahi
2015-02-12 11:58 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 12:23 ` Natanael
2015-02-12 12:49 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 13:02 ` Natanael
2015-02-12 13:44 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 14:36 ` Natanael
2015-02-12 14:53 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 15:20 ` Natanael
2015-02-12 15:30 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-12 13:36 ` Oleg Andreev
2015-02-12 12:52 ` Alex Mizrahi
2015-02-12 13:18 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 13:45 ` Alex Mizrahi
2015-02-12 13:52 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 14:04 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-12 14:16 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 14:25 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-12 23:08 ` Tom Harding
2015-02-12 14:32 ` Alex Mizrahi
2015-02-12 15:15 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 15:32 ` Natanael
2015-02-12 15:42 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 15:54 ` Natanael
2015-02-12 16:57 ` Btc Drak
2015-02-12 17:24 ` Oleg Andreev
2015-02-12 18:11 ` Justus Ranvier [this message]
2015-02-12 18:37 ` Allen Piscitello
2015-02-12 19:15 ` Alan Reiner
2015-02-12 19:34 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-12 19:45 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-12 19:49 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-12 19:47 ` Allen Piscitello
2015-02-12 19:52 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-12 20:02 ` Natanael
2015-02-12 20:36 ` Allen Piscitello
2015-02-14 14:47 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-02-12 20:06 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-12 19:49 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-12 20:18 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-13 11:34 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-12 12:54 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-12 14:42 ` Alex Mizrahi
2015-02-12 15:27 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-02-15 21:25 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2015-02-15 21:40 ` Adam Gibson
2015-02-19 8:56 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2015-02-21 19:09 ` Jorge Timón
2015-02-21 20:30 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-02-21 22:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-02-22 1:15 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 3:25 ` Jorge Timón
2015-02-22 4:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-02-22 11:41 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-02-22 12:06 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-02-22 13:41 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-02-22 13:53 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 23:29 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-02-24 1:11 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-03-01 17:59 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2015-03-01 19:05 ` Neil Fincham
2015-03-01 17:44 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2015-02-12 16:15 ` Lawrence Nahum
2015-02-12 18:14 ` Tom Harding
2015-02-12 21:40 ` Josh Lehan
2015-02-22 16:36 ` Tom Harding
2015-02-22 17:12 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 19:25 ` Tom Harding
2015-02-22 21:50 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-04 4:36 ` [Bitcoin-development] New release of replace-by-fee for Bitcoin Core v0.10.1 Peter Todd
2015-05-05 2:23 ` Kevin Greene
2015-05-23 18:26 ` [Bitcoin-development] Replace-by-fee v0.10.2 - Serious DoS attack fixed! - Also novel variants of existing attacks w/ Bitcoin XT and Android Bitcoin Wallet Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54DCECE4.3020802@riseup.net \
--to=justusranvier@riseup$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox