On 6/20/2015 5:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> Perhaps it isn’t prudent to push out changes to the relay policy that make 
> these exploits even easier right now - but we NEED to be applying some kind 
> of pressure on the merchant end to upgrade their stuff to be more resilient 
> so that we have more room for changes on things like relay policy without 
> significant disruption to the network.

There's no need to worry about causing more problems by relaying
double-spends.  After a year of watching, it's clear that already only
20% of hash power strictly obeys first-seen.


It may be surprising that
 - The period of ambiguity is very short - just 2 seconds
   (this makes sense, given the .5s median propagation time)
 - Fast double-spends between 2 and 15 seconds are less successful
 - The steady-state 80% respend success rate is reached after just 15

The >30s data point includes txes that were respent after a long time,
sometimes months.  Those longer-term respends are to be expected, as
people reclaim stuck txes.

Paying attention to double-spends is an opportunity for wallets and
merchants .  With 140 Bitcoin XT nodes online, you're probably already
receiving them.  Most wallets, including vanilla core, don't even alert
when a double-spend of a wallet transaction appears in a block - even
though there may still be time to withhold delivery of the goods/services.

If FSS RBF gains miner share, fewer successful zero-conf double-spends
will occur.  Only radical twisted logic finds that to be an undesirable

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to