Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-23 Thread Mike Hearn
> > This happened to one of the merchants at the Bitcoin 2013 conference in > San Jose. They sold some T-shirts and accepted zero-confirmation > transactions. The transactions depended on other unconfirmed transactions, > which never confirmed, so this merchant never got their money. > Beyond the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Natanael
- Sent from my tablet Den 22 feb 2015 17:25 skrev "Justus Ranvier" : > > You just disproved your own argument. > > It is possible to predict risk, and therefore to price the risk. Your fault is that you assume the predictions can be reliable and trustable. They can not be. The data you have avai

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/22/2015 10:17 AM, Natanael wrote: > The problem with this approach is that it is worthless as a > predictor. We aren't dealing with traffic safety and road design - > we are dealing with adaptive attackers and malicious miners and > pools. > > A

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Natanael
Den 22 feb 2015 17:00 skrev "Justus Ranvier" : > > On 02/22/2015 07:50 AM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > > This happened to one of the merchants at the Bitcoin 2013 > > conference in San Jose. They sold some T-shirts and accepted > > zero-confirmation transactions. The transactions depended on other > > u

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/22/2015 07:50 AM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > This happened to one of the merchants at the Bitcoin 2013 > conference in San Jose. They sold some T-shirts and accepted > zero-confirmation transactions. The transactions depended on other > unconfirmed t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Peter Todd
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:18:05PM +, joli...@airmail.cc wrote: > > Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective > > tools > > to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their > > effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few > > p

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread joliver
On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +, Adam Back wrote: >> My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed >> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical >> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Natanael
Den 22 feb 2015 14:29 skrev "Natanael" : > > > Den 22 feb 2015 13:36 skrev "Peter Todd" : > > > Implementing it as a general purpose scripting language improvement has > > a lot of advantages, not least of which is that you no longer need to > > rely entirely on inherently unreliable P2P networking

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Peter Todd
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +, Adam Back wrote: > My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed > away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical > security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something > better, then we can help

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Bryan Bishop
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Adam Back wrote: > away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical > security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something > better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the > current weaker 0-conf transact

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Adam Back
My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the current weaker 0-con

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Peter Todd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22 February 2015 08:50:30 GMT-05:00, Matt Whitlock wrote: >On Sunday, 22 February 2015, at 2:29 pm, Natanael wrote: >> In other words, you are unprotected and potentially at greater risk >if you >> create a transaction depending on another zer

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Sunday, 22 February 2015, at 2:29 pm, Natanael wrote: > In other words, you are unprotected and potentially at greater risk if you > create a transaction depending on another zero-confirmation transaction. This happened to one of the merchants at the Bitcoin 2013 conference in San Jose. They s

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Natanael
Den 22 feb 2015 13:36 skrev "Peter Todd" : > Implementing it as a general purpose scripting language improvement has > a lot of advantages, not least of which is that you no longer need to > rely entirely on inherently unreliable P2P networking: Promise to never > create two signatures for a specif

Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

2015-02-22 Thread Peter Todd
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 08:02:03AM +, Adam Back wrote: FWIW I've been advocating this kind of thing in various forms for literally years, including to hold fidelity bonded banks honest - what you now call 'federated sidechains' - and most recently Feb 12th on #bitcoin-dev: 19:56 < petertodd>