On Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:15:53 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:55:44PM -0700, Tom Harding wrote:
> > On 9/25/2014 7:37 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > > Of course you wouldn't want nodes to propagate alerts without
> > > independently verifying them
> >
> > How would a node independently verify a double-spend alert, other than
> > by having access to an actual signed double-spend?
> >
> > #4570 relays the first double-spend AS an alert. Running this branch on
> > mainnet, I have been keeping a live list of relayed double-spend
> > transactions at http://respends.thinlink.com
>
> Speaking of, I ported my replace-by-fee branch the recent v0.9.3
> release: https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/tree/replace-by-fee-v0.9.3
>
> I actually ported it a few days ago; that release has been running on a
> half-dozen or so nodes right now for a few days with no issues.
>
> The v0.9.3 release's scriptSig size limit increase adds a new category
> of double-spending exploit. I'm not going to get time to add that
> exploit to my replace-by-fee toolkit(1) for at least another week or so
> though - pull-reqs accepted.
>
> 1) https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools
Do you have or can you provide a version compatible with CPFP, such that a
child paying a higher fee trumps the parent's replacement?
Preferably something that will merge cleanly into 0.9.x-ljr :)
Luke
--
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
