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 1VdI3X-0000EI-5I for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:10:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.172; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com; helo=mail-ea0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VdI3W-0002Rn-5K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:10:51 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r16so3383709ead.3 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:10:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=t9L6DTseWK7Z2ivjsoEek8a/+nBCI/bPpWP5nEZuHLQ=; b=WmFJyOfWBMMYP0dKEQE/Mav6Nu+3cV8QPRv5k7TueLXpOatQOlHU02sd5a5aGhRn4b aYsUwxET0OOTYUVGE8uocOcM0Raeh7mHbGb0IMKsr/e61ZRYPa9tw1yyuoXhCoLhFiMh tVVDtO3mcfgC+PSgGiXiQsd4GvVpsoY2JKcS2jV+CXu5KxrIUNhaUvYq7W6Agdr1+OLT FwRJ7yso7cFNS0odIdbgcHTpT42szFDakhsTCalsr7vbbtf7IYrYLIDm2UdsAbZHONLn aWoK4htO/Nn6A8VTOLJCbGP3TbbIfh209AqKrdo0uskph+1DpN9GZd/EvbJdvjvY6w++ zrKg== X-Received: by 10.15.34.198 with SMTP id e46mr969203eev.108.1383563443809; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e13sm45188153eeu.4.2013.11.04.03.10.42 for (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 03:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D0E52E0B80; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:10:40 +0100 (CET) Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:10:38 +0100 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:10:38 +0100 From: Adam Back To: Peter Todd Message-ID: <20131104111038.GA24552@netbook.cypherspace.org> References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> <20131024145447.GA19949@savin> <20131104105243.GA28805@savin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131104105243.GA28805@savin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Hashcash: 1:20:131104:pete@petertodd.org::955qFT10B/h+aSlK:0000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000953v X-Hashcash: 1:20:131104:john.dillon892@googlemail.com::H9gZDaR31oDJvU2w:00000000 000000000000000000000000359Y X-Hashcash: 1:20:131104:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::NdakJew4GK0jF HvX:000000000000000000001VFt 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (adam.back[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1VdI3W-0002Rn-5K Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Zeroconf-safe tx replacement (replace-for-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: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:10:51 -0000 Might leak less wiggle room and be simpler/more robut to validate that *everything* has to be the same except for the amount going to one (presumed change) address. A privacy leak I know, but dont do that - ie send enough change the first time. And network analysis has shown change addresses arent adding hardly any privacy. We need more robust privacy fixes independently. I do not support damaging the 0-conf feature, so I think this later approach is a better track for revising fees. Adam On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:52:43AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote: >On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:17:50AM +0000, John Dillon wrote: >> This discussion seems to be a lot of hot air over a simple observation that >> estimates are imperfect and always will be. I do not understand you vehement >> opposition the notion that a backup is a good thing except in the context that >> replacement to change fees is halfway to profit-seeking replacement by fee. >> >> >> Peter Todd: >> >> You did a fair bit of leg work for replace-by-fee. Seems to me that >> replace-for-fee will help prep infrastructure to eventual replace-by-fee usage, >> while avoiding some of the politics around zero-conf transactions.