Hi Mike, Jeremy, Drak,
Before going through your questions, I would like to bring some clarity on a
few key elements in that protocol. There are really two aspects to it:
The contract negotiation; when the user first subscribes, it is prompted by a
contract that will define the payment bounds as
Am suggesting a (possible) mitigation of [possible flooding, etc], via
some kind of discussion (potentially process BIP, related to bundling and
/ or randomization) not now, but down the road. However, needs more
thought and analysis (you mentioned code audit?) before it could be
floated around or
Given the enormous number of variations on time periods for a
recurring payment, might it be better to simple allow a list of
timestamps? It costs almost nothing, bandwidth wise, and shifts the
thinking to the merchant platform. That doesn't give you an infinite
time frame, but you just get a new l
>
> So in summary the spec needs daily as an option, and to specify the
> recurring cycle as every n*period >(one of daily, weekly, monthly,
> yearly): and you can drop quarterly since it's just expressed as per
> >3*monthly.
If you're going to go the direction of a {unitType, unitsPerInter
Forgive me if I missed it, but the spec doesnt look like it can handle only
handle periods of per week, per month, per quarter rather than 'n period'.
I take Paypal as a reference example for subscription payments where you
can set recurring to every: n days, n weeks, n months, n years. That way a
If I understand correctly, the risk here is this would open a historically large discrepancy between MIN_RELAY and the expected minimum fee to actually obtain block inclusion. I don't know if that's true, but I think that's what Peter is saying makes it different this time. The relay network does
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:25:58PM +0530, Mike Hearn wrote:
Well, I've done my responsible disclosure, and I've got better things to
do than argue with wishful thinking.
> There are two possibilities.
>
> One is that the value of transactions with the new lower fee is outweighed
> by increased o
There are two possibilities.
One is that the value of transactions with the new lower fee is outweighed
by increased orphan costs and miners refuse to include them en-masse.
Wallet authors lose the staring match and go back to setting higher fees
until such a time as block propagation is optimised
Hey there,
So the essence of this protocol is as follows:
enum PaymentFrequencyType {
WEEKLY = 1;
MONTHLY = 2;
QUARTERLY = 3;
ANNUAL = 4;
}
message RecurringPaymentDetails {
// Namespace for the merchant such as org.foo.bar
required string merchant_
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:25:18PM +0530, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Given that the fee drop puts fees in "real" (i.e. dollar) terms back to
> where they were some months ago, it seems odd to claim this is creating
> vulnerabilities that didn't exist in the previous version. The cost of an
> attack would
Given that the fee drop puts fees in "real" (i.e. dollar) terms back to
where they were some months ago, it seems odd to claim this is creating
vulnerabilities that didn't exist in the previous version. The cost of an
attack would be the same as before.
-
> So, just to be clear, we're adding, say, a memory limited mempool or
> something prior to release so this fee drop doesn't open up an obvious
> low-risk DDoS exploit right? As we all know, the network bandwidth
> DoS attack mitigation strategy relies on transactions we accept to
> mempools ge
12 matches
Mail list logo
