Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially > broken by paying the miner out of band. I think CPFP allows this to break: a miner getting paid out of band would just make the block look

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

Only if your keys are online and the transaction is self-signed. It wouldn’t let you pre-sign a transaction for a third party to broadcast and have it clear at just the market rate in the future. Like a payment channel refund, for example. > On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:17 PM, Nathan Wilcox via

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

> On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially >> broken by paying the miner out of band. If you pay out of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:53:55AM +, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I'm somewhat curious what the authors envisioned the real-world > implications of this model to be.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

Happy to see Mark Friedenbach's strawman implementation. Two clarifying verifications: This implementation would allow old-style implicit fees which would have the same behavior (Pay-Your-Bid). Correct? In terms of space costs, rebateable fee txns (or CPFP chains, I'm less clear on that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:45:02PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > > > On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev > >> wrote: > >> Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this

[bitcoin-dev] Why the BIP-72 Payment Protocol URI Standard is Insecure Against MITM Attacks

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:43:05PM +0300, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Andreas Schildbach wrote: > > This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an > > expiration time. > > The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly > requires back and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:43:05PM +0300, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Peter Todd wrote: > Perhaps outside the scope of BIP173, but what about baking it into the > protocol? That way a transaction that's sent too late, simply won't get > confirmed. This removes the need for refund

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:53:55AM +, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'm somewhat curious what the authors envisioned the real-world implications > of this model to be. While blindly asking users to enter what they're willing > to pay always works in theory, I'd imagine in such a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > What do you mean by "an embedded amount"? I ask you to pay 1 Bitcoin to bc1blahblah. ...you make a typo, or a poorly placed cosmic ray switches it in your ram to bc1blohblahbah. No problem, it'll get rejected. (even if

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially > broken by paying the miner out of band. If you pay out of band fee > instead of regular fee, then your transaction cannot be included with >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

I'm somewhat curious what the authors envisioned the real-world implications of this model to be. While blindly asking users to enter what they're willing to pay always works in theory, I'd imagine in such a world the fee selection UX would be similar to what it is today - users are provided a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revising BIP 2 to expand editorial authority

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:01:40PM -0500, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > What do people think about modifying BIP 2 to allow editors to merge these > > kinds of changes

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:58:30AM +, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also > > operationally: services like exchanges

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09:59PM +0200, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an > expiration time. I'm well aware. As the payment protocol hasn't caught on - and doesn't fully overlap all the usecases that addresses do anyway

[bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets

This article by Ron Lavi, Or Sattath, and Aviv Zohar was forwarded to me and is of interest to this group: "Redesigning Bitcoin's fee market" https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08881 I'll briefly summarize before providing some commentary of my own, including transformation of the proposed

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

On Thursday 28 September 2017 2:13:48 PM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an > >> expiration time. > > > > The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

Op 28 sep. 2017, om 18:06 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev het volgende geschreven: > > On 09/28/2017 04:41 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >>> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is >>> already being

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

On 09/28/2017 04:41 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is >> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts >> as the invoice. > > True and the more complicated fields, like a digital signature,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

Op 28 sep. 2017, om 17:13 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev het volgende geschreven: > > On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >>> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an >>> expiration time. >> >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an >> expiration time. > > The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly > requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or printing it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revising BIP 2 to expand editorial authority

Perhaps having authors consent to certain types of changes when they submit their BIP? > On Sep 27, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > >> Op 27 sep. 2017, om 22:01 heeft Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

Peter Todd wrote: > > Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also > operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users > sending funds to addresses whose private keys have been lost or stolen; [...] > > To help combat this problem, I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

First, there’s been no discussion so far for address expiration to be part of “the protocol” which usually means consensus rules or p2p. This is purely about wallets and wallet information exchange protocols. There’s no way for the sender to know whether an address has been used without a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

I do agree with you to a degree, but address reuse is actually not even supposed to work (it is a bug). Peter Todd is suggesting only to make expiration a part of a new address format, and we could have a GUI warning (but no protocol change) for the existing formats. What do you think about that?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revising BIP 2 to expand editorial authority

Agreed, I think a sign-off mechanism might be desirable. Currently it must be the original author(s) signing off, but we can probably widen that to be any 2-3 community members. They'd basically be attesting that the meaning did not change. - cdecker On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:02 PM Bryan Bishop

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an expiration time. On 09/27/2017 06:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also > operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users >