From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 20:09:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDorEFNzzHH2bxpo6miv1H0RUhL9uAYX6gg2aW0wB1QDbw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150219085604.GT14804@nl.grid.coop>
I agree "scorched hearth" is a really bad name for the 0 conf protocol
based on game theory. I would have preferred "stag hunt" since that's
basically what it's using (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt)
but I like the protocol and I think it would be interesting to
integrate it in the payment protocol.
Even if that protocol didn't existed or didn't worked, replace-by-fee
is purely part of a node's policy, not part of consensus.
From the whitepaper, 0 conf transactions being secure by the good will
of miners was never an assumption, and it is clear to me that the
system cannot provide those guaranties based on such a weak scheme. I
believe thinking otherwise is naive.
As to consider non-standard policies "an attack to bitcoin" because
"that's not how bitcoin used to work", then I guess minimum relay fee
policies can also be considered "an attack to bitcoin" on the same
grounds.
Lastly, "first-seen-wins" was just a simple policy to bootstrap the
system, but I expect that most nodes will eventually move to policies
that are economically rational for miners such as replace-by-fee.
Not only I disagree this will be "the end of bitcoin" or "will push
the price of the btc miners are mining down", I believe it will be
something good for bitcoin.
Since this is apparently controversial I don't want to push for
replace-by-fee to become the new standard policy (something that would
make sense to me). But once the policy code is sufficiently modular as
to support several policies I would like bitcoin core to have a
CReplaceByFeePolicy alongside CStandardPolicy and a CNullPolicy (no
policy checks at all).
One step at a time I guess...
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed•org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:40:24PM +0200, Adam Gibson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/15/2015 11:25 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>> >
>> > Most money/payment systems include some method to reverse or undo
>> > payments made in error. In these systems, the longer settlement
>> > times you mention below are a feature, not a bug, and give more
>> > time for a human to react to errors and system failures.
>> >
>>
>> Settlement has to be final somewhere. That is the whole point of it.
>> Transfer costs in current electronic payment systems are a direct
>> consequence of their non-finality. That's the point Satoshi was making
>> in the introduction to the whitepaper: "With the possibility of
>> reversal, the need for trust spreads".
>
> The problem with that statement is I trust a merchant that I went into
> a store and made a payment with personally more than I trust the firmware
> on my hard drive [1].
>
> The attack surface of devices in your computer is huge. A motivated attacker
> just needs to get an intern into a company that makes some kind of component
> or system that's in your computer, cloud server, hardware wallet, or what
> have you that has firmware capable of reading your private keys.
>
> With the possibility of mass trojaned hardware, if we are going to trust
> the system, it must somehow allow reversal through a human-in-the-loop.
>
>> There is nothing wrong with having reversible mechanisms built on top
>> of Bitcoin, and indeed it makes sense for most activity to happen at
>> those higher layers. It's easy to build things that way, but
>> impossible to build them the other way: you can't build a
>> non-reversible layer on top of a reversible layer.
>
> We built 'reliable' TCP on top of unreliable ethernet networks. My experience
> with networking was if you tried to guarantee message delivery at the lowest
> level, the system got exceedingly complicated, expensive, and brittle.
>
> Most applications, in particular paying someone you already trust, are quite
> happy running on reversible systems, and in some cases more reliable and
> lower risk. (carrying non-reversible cash is generally considered risky)
>
> The problem is that if the base currency is assumed to be non-reversible,
> then it's brittle and becomes 'too big to fail'.
>
> Where the blockchain improves on everything else is in transparency. If you
> reverse transactions a lot, it will be obvious from an analysis. I would much
> rather deal with a known, predictable, and relatively continous transaction
> reversal rate (percentage) than have to deal with sudden failures where
> some anonymous bad actor makes off with a fortune.
>
> We already have zero-conf double-spend transaction reversal, why not explicitly
> extend that a little in a way that senders and receivers have a choice to
> use it, or not?
>
>
> [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/16/us-usa-cyberspying-idUSKBN0LK1QV20150216
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
> from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
> with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
> Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-21 19:09 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
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 [this message]
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=CABm2gDorEFNzzHH2bxpo6miv1H0RUhL9uAYX6gg2aW0wB1QDbw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=hozer@hozed$(echo .)org \
/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