From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6SUc-0003jF-RV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:48:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.182; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f182.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6SUb-0003T7-TK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:48:10 +0000 Received: by pdbki1 with SMTP id ki1so114271895pdb.1 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:48:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.235.129 with SMTP id um1mr42965298pac.129.1434844084261; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qy7sm15266213pbb.12.2015.06.20.16.47.55 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:47:53 -0700 Message-Id: <17636B68-7A3A-4412-96D7-38CCA7C44E27@gmail.com> References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <20150619151127.GA11263@savin.petertodd.org> <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z6SUb-0003T7-TK Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Justus Ranvier Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:48:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n = wrote: >=20 > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo = wrote: >> 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=E2=80=A6 >=20 > I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument > from authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I > think the assumptions while using the system should be: >=20 > "As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are > not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest > chain and outpace attackers." >=20 > I can't say for sure what was meant by "attacking the network" in this > context but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and > proof-of-work-timestamped history. > Unconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering > unconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a > universal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work in > the first place. >=20 > Alternative policies are NOT attacks on the network. Just to be clear, Jorge, I wasn=E2=80=99t suggesting that unconfirmed = transactions are part of any sort of global consensus. In fact, they = very much AREN=E2=80=99T. Which is exactly why it is extremely dangerous = to accept unconfirmed transactions as final unless you clearly have = assessed the risks and it makes sense for the particular business use = case. - Eric Lombrozo --Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVhfupAAoJEJNAI64YFENUN+kP/3Jhb3T/TxBDz+GReyEE3Fds WWDxvrTjWFz8h7erTRMWLDNqL2a6FNgPN+R28aBCqKc7SmkrffvuHONH1jcyasOW SoodVFZVrKUs7sd0ANFm8JHlLfiYlEPhsOxr/MOIAl8L7nEev+JlzoDjTAKC75YS WW/Y027lQXsMwck8Ir3Me+8QB8DMCGoFcW3jCJmGR4m6/T6x0UMjvJ9iRO8+4Hui 48WTY+S5iBYHMeU99Vr+iWyUQMAfAX25NIjrLU7XtCoxTX8q7veZkwjU18PcYGUS bevyjmE5CJThiKMGlXTu9FotogSRZGWK3OjdLINBnAW3o4hJ3XVqRUg/8f86Lxmv xJetee0FZIr8PvOOQlDhYrkfIdcQ+2rbuo2W7X8IQnBsW6HCjVWgIOXDliwrvJON EhdPqhJMDFqqvQE7p4U5QIZ1MdZVY+Y7IRF2Jkd7ML5qBV9TPybISfVUBKjNReWD SaRdLJp8DrGgJWGmJL6ei6GUi+ykHNoxrWVuX1Xrj/uI/9Hx1K51mLvcZIG8CxM7 Xy9UzmNySqDLJtY7czdE9m4lklYBBh9W2aeDdcLf0tRffYmQp9/fM2Ir7Hrn7ZL7 xm8ZyGFBYuDTKxEViVT86EKscelmowvARyQnmlpgOhAWTpsCJHuxzcXpF2hoBv5M uVQbmT22LV+tNXc1JXQM =D7K5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A7B82F58-EC87-45C2-AB83-B15ABAB57EF7--