From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YPL8t-00028r-Im for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:15:31 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.101; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148101.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail148101.authsmtp.com ([62.13.148.101]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YPL8r-0001To-MS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:15:31 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t1M1FHnm063111; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:15:17 GMT Received: from [25.108.40.159] ([24.114.71.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t1M1FDZk035478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:15:14 GMT In-Reply-To: References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> <20150215212512.GR14804@nl.grid.coop> <54E11248.6090401@gmail.com> <20150219085604.GT14804@nl.grid.coop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Peter Todd Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:15:02 +0000 To: Jeff Garzik , Mark Friedenbach , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Message-ID: <1A8F9DE6-14AF-429D-9C1D-4BE66E917D90@petertodd.org> X-Server-Quench: 42042db6-ba30-11e4-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR bgdMdAAUHlAWAgsB AmMbW1VeUVh7WGY7 aQ5PbARZfE1PQQRs VldNRFdNFUssAGEA cGp0CRlxcgFBcDBx bE9gXj5fXkR+dxIv RFMGRG4GeGZhPWQC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4REyY4 ThsPWD8+WEMISm0t d1p/chhEBk1NWgAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.71.166/465 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YPL8r-0001To-MS Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 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: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:15:31 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21 February 2015 17:47:28 GMT-05:00, Jeff Garzik wrote: >"scorched earth" refers to the _real world_ impact such policies would >have on present-day 0-conf usage within the bitcoin community. I think you guys are reading too much into the name... Replace-by-fee is called "replace-by-fee" because it considers whether to replace or not based on fee; the idea came about in an discussion about replacement based on nSequence. I forget whether it was myself or John Dillon who came up with the name "scorched earth", but it just refers to the game theory behind the *specific* idea of the receiver combating a zeroconf double-spend by sending all the funds to fees. Scorched earth as in "You're trying to defraud me, so I'm not going yo play this game or negotiate, I'm just going to immediately do what is most likely to make you lose the maximum amount of money to punish you for your vandalism." >All payment processors AFAIK process transactions through some scoring >system, then accept 0-conf transactions for payments. > >This isn't some theoretical exercise. Like it or not many use >insecure 0-conf transactions for rapid payments. Deploying something >that makes 0-conf transactions unusable would have a wide, negative >impact on present day bitcoin payments, thus "scorched earth" I'm not so convinced, precisely because we've seen zeroconf fail in pretty bad ways; the people most vulnerable to losses have generally changed the way they operate. (e.g. ATM's that no longer rely on zeroconf security, instead waiting for confirmations, installing cameras, etc.) My #1 concern right now is person-to-person trading, and people doing that tend to wait for confirmations or otherwise protect themselves. (e.g. reputation systems) >Without adequate decentralized solutions for instant payments, >deploying replace-by-fee widely would simply push instant transactions >even more into the realm of centralized, walled-garden services. Agreed. Deploying it has been something I've made into a long, drawn out, protracted process for precisely that reason. OTOH I sometimes wonder if I've gone too far with that - the services that themselves try to guarantee zeroconf right now through metrics are themselves highly centralised, and there's a big risk of them driving mining centralisation itself when they fail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJU6S2N AAoJEMCF8hzn9LncrFUH/1xhuPhYJnjTCxhpv2h5ZJOT3wLsrU1oEDmD5fWy/4wG 7ppr3EiHNX7nB42fgeSGZF8fW1VuBjivJa9ra3IvFysFfaD40Kyre2FTnN03+vTC Upa5ykPzOMqZIHkSf8N1xMbz4SXHHPWu8wPMzj/QGvUpllNiOWn/6Vooqrcp7f6Y NJFykSq+vDNMOUWCiJG8hhoKiOcZhTH0Aj9qPcGs9WhgsF7wDAX7pg6iO6Y5qmt5 LdFcut2caL6mIxpExm0F9V+lyeam/3gvAU3eecHY77KOxRxFTO1xfQXEJFTWN92h +M9BXQZ1UifjTZWMzK0kp3SRJuVSXg4KOAapQFBLTzU= =3Mmw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----