Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent a txout from being spent until an expiration time

2014-10-07 Thread Gavin Andresen
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> Meanwhile, what I said *is* correct. New version numbers result in only > a log print. Being hard forked off results in both log prints *and* the > -alertnotify being run: > That is easy to change; I'll submit a pull request. It is a good id

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent a txout from being spent until an expiration time

2014-10-07 Thread Mike Hearn
> > That is easy to change; I'll submit a pull request. > That's certainly a useful improvement. It won't help the existing userbase though - assuming CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is to go in to the next major release. If there's going to be an intermediate release (6 months?) which lays the groundwork for

[Bitcoin-development] Partial wallet rescan

2014-10-07 Thread Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste
Hi all, Before starting to implement a patch for a specific need, I would like to be sure that it was not written already and available somewhere. This list is probably my best chance. I would like to add an optional parameter to "-rescan", from which the rescan would then start. When performing

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack (FRONT)

2014-10-07 Thread Sergio Lerner
On 06/10/2014 08:43 p.m., Tom Harding wrote: > On 10/5/2014 4:00 PM, Sergio Lerner wrote: >> If everyone acts rationally in his own interest, then the best choice >> for the remaining miners is to try to mine a competing block at the >> same height n including the high-fee transaction, to collect

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack (FRONT)

2014-10-07 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Sergio Lerner wrote: > Using the my previous terminology, automatic fee-sharing ("ORBS") is a > solution to the freeze problem ("FRONT") but opens the windows to > "CHAKIDO" double-spending. and CHAKIDO double-spending is a much worse > problem than FRONT. I'm not

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack (FRONT)

2014-10-07 Thread Sergio Lerner
On 07/10/2014 04:16 p.m., Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Then I spend the output of the fraudulent spend nlocked > one block higher, and spend the output of that one again, nlocked one > block higher, and so on... each step paying fees. Yes, you're right. I didn't consider that case. But the problem is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent a txout from being spent until an expiration time

2014-10-07 Thread Tom Harding
On 10/7/2014 8:50 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > I don't have any opinion on the hard- versus soft- fork debate. I > think either can work. > Opinion: if a soft work works, it should be preferred, if for no other reason than once a hard-fork is planned, the discussion begins about what else to t