Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. I know and bookmarked your branch - nice work. So, to clarify: - bitcoin core (official / default) 0.10.x currently has First-seen mempool behavior - your custom branch uses replace by fee mempool behavior which allows an user to change anything in a tx (I guess

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:29:28AM +0300, s7r wrote: > What is wrong with the man testing some ideas on his custom branch? This > is how improvements come to life. I saw in the BIPs some really > interesting ideas and nice brainstorming which came from Peter Todd. > > Now, my question, if replace

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

That attitude and doxxing is not appropriate for this list. On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:30 PM, wrote: > You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks > and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading > the anti-scaling mob is for your clients, not B

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

Well so for example it could have an additional input (to increase the BTC paid into the transaction) and pay more to an existing change address and higher fee, or add an additional change address, and leave a larger fee, or if you had a right-sized coin add an additional input that all goes to fee

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

What is wrong with the man testing some ideas on his custom branch? This is how improvements come to life. I saw in the BIPs some really interesting ideas and nice brainstorming which came from Peter Todd. Now, my question, if replace by fee doesn't allow me to change the inputs or the outputs, I

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

Please let's at least have some civility and decorum on this list. On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, wrote: > You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks > and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading > the anti-scaling mob is for your clients,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading the anti-scaling mob is for your clients, not Bitcoin. Get the fuck out. Peter Todd - 8930511 Canada Ltd. 1214-1423 Mississauga Valley Blvd. Mississauga O

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015, at 11:22 am, Danny Thorpe wrote: > What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals? > > Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods > broadcast a double spend of that transaction to pay Alice nothing? Your > only cost is the higher

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

I am not the one presenting this as some kind of novel attack on transactions in general. On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Raystonn wrote: > Trust, regulation, law, and the threat of force. Are you serious? > On 26 May 2015 11:38 am, Allen Piscitello > wrote: > > What prevents you from writin

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

Trust, regulation, law, and the threat of force.  Are you serious? On 26 May 2015 11:38 am, Allen Piscitello wrote:What prevents you from writing a bad check using today's systems?On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Danny Thorpe wrote:What prevents RBF from being used for fr

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

The general idea for replace by fee is that it would be restricted so as to make it safe, eg all the original addresses should receive no less bitcoin (more addresses can be added). The scorched earth game theory stuff (allowing removing recipients) is kind of orthogonal. Adam On 26 May 2015 at

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

See the "first-seen-safe replace-by-fee" thread Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Danny Thorpe wrote: > What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals? > > Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

What prevents you from writing a bad check using today's systems? On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Danny Thorpe wrote: > What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals? > > Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods > broadcast a double spend of that t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals? Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods broadcast a double spend of that transaction to pay Alice nothing? Your only cost is the higher network fee of the 2nd tx. Thanks, -Danny On Mon, May 25, 2015 at

[Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:03:09AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > CPFP also solves it just fine. CPFP is a significantly more expensive way of paying fees than RBF, particularly for the use-case of defragmenting outputs, with cost savings ranging from 30% to 90% Case 1: CPFP vs. RBF for increasing t