Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers

2015-06-18 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-18 16:28, Jeff Garzik wrote: This is an engineering list. The quote precisely describes how the bitcoin consensus system functions. Users' choice is largely binary: Follow the rules, or bitcoin software ignores you. Software

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

2015-06-19 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 15:11, Peter Todd wrote: If you ask me to pay you 1BTC at address A and I create tx1 that pays 1BTC to A1 and 2BTC of chain to C, what's wrong with me creating tx2 that still pays 1BTC to A, but now only pays 1.999BTC to C? I'm not

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

2015-06-19 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 10:39, Peter Todd wrote: Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

2015-06-19 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 16:36, Matt Whitlock wrote: On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: I'd also like to note that prima facie doesn't mean always, it means that the default assumption, unless proven otherwise. Why

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

2015-06-19 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 16:42, Eric Lombrozo wrote: If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence of a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

2015-06-19 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 15:37, Eric Lombrozo wrote: OK, a few things here: The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come from anywhere at any time…and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

2015-06-20 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2015-06-20 19:19, Eric Lombrozo wrote: On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: Signed PGP part On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote: On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote: If we

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

2015-06-19 Thread justusranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 17:50, Jeff Garzik wrote: No. You cannot know which is the 'right' or wrong transaction. One tx has obvious nSequence adjustments, the other - the refund transaction - may not. I'm still not seeing a case where a node could

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market

2015-06-16 Thread justusranvier
On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote: Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function. How will the SPV wallet users pay for this service?

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market

2015-06-15 Thread justusranvier
On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote: ​Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the right way to do anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is ​a less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is the best way that exists for mobile