public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:15:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DCFBB5.3080202@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm4OBEJPW-6CiY5fQ1kUYppDnTtZfLF_YpBEaB8ovzx9og@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6724 bytes --]

I'll add fuel to the fire here, and express that I believe that
replace-by-fee is good in the long-term.  Peter is not breaking the
zero-conf, it was already broken, and not admitting it creates a false
sense of security.  I don't want to see systems that are built on the
assumption that zero-conf tx are safe solely because it has always
appeared safe.  You can argue about rational miner behaviors all day,
but in a decentralized system you have no idea what miners consider
rational, or speculate about their incentives. 

If there's one thing I learned playing poker (many years ago), was that
always assuming your opponent is rational can lose you a lot of money. 
You made play that, in hindsight, was terrible given what he actually
had.  But you assumed no sane or rational person in his position would
make such a play so you discounted it in your decision-making process. 
You're "right" that his actions were terrible and irrational, but he
still won your money because you discounted his ability to make such a
"bad" play.  Here, you are speculating that an "opponent" uses the same
values/motivations/rationality as yourself, and then building systems
that depend on that being true.  Even if it "should" be true doesn't
mean that it is true and will remain that way.  And you will get burned
by it eventually.

The Bitcoin network achieves something that we didnt' think was possible
10 years ago:  a totally trustless, decentralized ledger.  The cost?  It
takes time for the decentralized network to reach consensus that
transactions "happened".  That is quite literally the trade-off that we
make: you can centralize things by putting a bank in the middle and
getting instant confirmation, or you decentralize and let the network
reach consensus over time without the central authority.   If you want
instant confirmations, you're going to need to add centralization
because Bitcoin never offered it.  I support efforts to dispel any such
myths as soon as possible and encourage building robust solutions
(payment channels, insured zero-conf services, etc.).

-Alan


On 02/12/2015 07:37 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> You cannot close Pandora's box.  Whether or not this type of patch should exist is irrelevant.  It
does, and there are incentives to use it by miners.  These are the
bounds we have to deal with and the world we must adapt to.
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Justus Ranvier
<justusranvier@riseup•net <mailto:justusranvier@riseup•net>> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
>     sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot
Media, is your
>     hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
>     leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and
more. Take a
>     look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bitcoin-development mailing list
>     Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
<mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media,
is your
> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9193 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-12 19:15 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
2015-02-12 18:37                 ` Allen Piscitello
2015-02-12 19:15                   ` Alan Reiner [this message]
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=54DCFBB5.3080202@gmail.com \
    --to=etotheipi@gmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(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