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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1S2TsG-0004pa-Sn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:16 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1S2TsF-0006lD-Og for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:16 +0000 Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7ABEF60DA2; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:24:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:24:15 +0100 From: Pieter Wuille To: Luke-Jr Message-ID: <20120228202414.GA16255@vps7135.xlshosting.net> References: <201202281323.02976.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201202281323.02976.luke@dashjr.org> X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list X-Headers-End: 1S2TsF-0006lD-Og Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability 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: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:42:17 -0000 On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:23:01PM -0500, Luke-Jr wrote: > Has it been verified to make even rocconor's complicated transaction-based > version impossible? Yes, he tried it on testnet against a patched node. > > The purpose of this mail is asking for support for adding this rule to > > the protocol rules. If there is consensus this rule is the solution, I > > hope pools and miners can agree to update their nodes without lengthy > > coinbase-flagging procedure that would only delay a solution. So, who > > is in favor? > > Can we do this in two steps? First, prefer blocks which don't break the rule; > once 55%+ are confirmed to have upgraded, then it is safe to treat it as a > hard rule. I prefer to avoid this if possible, as it increases the size of the patch significantly. In particular, it would require the discouragement-system to be backported to whatever versions pools are running. The current proposal only requires adding 6 lines of code. -- Pieter