On 4/24/14, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > ... > With replace-by-fee scorched-earth the success rate of such > double-spends would be significantly reduced as the attacker would need > to get lucky with bad propagation not just once, but twice in a row.
Interesting. >> Replace-by-fee and child-pays-for parent cannot be prohibited by a >> protocol rule. >> I believe all miners will eventually implement these policies because >> it is the more rational way for them to prioritize transactions. >> Finally I hope they do because it would make 0-confirmation >> transactions possible as described in this post. >> So I can't find any reasoning against replace-by-fee unless my example >> is terribly flawed. >> Am I missing something? > > A few things: > > 1) Replace-by-fee doesn't protect against sybil attacks; only No worse than the current situation. > 2) Replace-by-fee scorched earth does require you to keep private keys > online to sign the replacements. Not a big deal, but it's yet another > reason why you wouldn't want to use it for high-value stuff. High-value transactions should wait for several confirmations. > 3) It doesn't directly solve finney attacks(1) where the miner mines the > transaction in private. However finney attacks are only relevant if > there is high centralization of hashing power, and all other proposed > mechanisms, e.g. coinbase reallocation, themselves do a lot of harm to > decentralization. (just look at how coinbase reallocation lets large > pools bully smaller miners out of business by blacklisting their blocks) Again, no worse than the current situation. And regular double-spends attacks are much simpler than finney attacks. > One interesting thing with regard to finney attacks and replace-by-fee > though is that enforcing hasher visibility of the blocks they are mining > - what getblocktemplate was meant to do voluntarily - lets any hasher > detect a finney attack double-spend and broadcast it. They have a weak > incentive to do so - the scorched earth reply is a high-fee transaction > of course and pre-broadcasting transactions makes blocks propagate > faster - at which point you're back to a public double-spend. Enforcing > visibility of block contents to hashers is definitely a good thing for > decentralization. Where can I read more about "enforcing hashing visibility of block contents"? Sounds somewhat similar to p2pool to me but I'm not sure I understand it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoinfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development