From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VdIot-00059v-OG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:59:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.112 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.112; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149112.authsmtp.co.uk; Received: from outmail149112.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.149.112]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VdIor-0004lE-Na for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:59:47 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt12.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id rA4BxZ8Q098413; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:59:35 GMT Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id rA4BxQ6V008824 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:59:30 GMT Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 06:59:25 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Adam Back Message-ID: <20131104115925.GB1013@savin> References: <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> <20131024145447.GA19949@savin> <20131104105243.GA28805@savin> <20131104111038.GA24552@netbook.cypherspace.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131104111038.GA24552@netbook.cypherspace.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 90bad936-4548-11e3-b802-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgYUFloCAgsB AmUbWlVeVVR7WmI7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsqcBhz Tn8YNBlyfw1EfDBx ZkJmWj5SXBYrIU9+ RFNQEGkOeGZhPWMC AkhYdR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA45EyQ7 TBcEE3A0FEMIDzkj ZwYrMloVF0sUP0Mu UxNhQ18ANxYZB0hQ GFsIDiJUZjH/ X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 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 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org] X-Headers-End: 1VdIor-0004lE-Na 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 11:59:47 -0000 --FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:10:38PM +0100, Adam Back wrote: > 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 (presu= med > 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. >=20 > We need more robust privacy fixes independently. I do not support damagi= ng > the 0-conf feature, so I think this later approach is a better track for > revising fees. There's been a number of uses found for tx-replacement beyond simply modifying fees. In additition, allowing for the value of a specificly designated change address to be changed after the fact is not compatible with current zero-conf-using implementations; they don't know to treat a txout as special so allowing its value to be reduced would allow for a zeroconf attack. Anyway, if you look at the code that actually implements the replacement, it's extremely simple already. I see no reason to make it less general; transaction relaying rules are not part of consensus. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000a6dd96c551eca7299463e4e523462798a006535f412b519c7 --FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQGrBAEBCACVBQJSd4wdXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMGE2ZGQ5NmM1NTFlY2E3Mjk5NDYzZTRlNTIzNDYyNzk4YTAw NjUzNWY0MTJiNTE5YzcvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfvD0wgAlWyb5jOtqlohGDi0fD3Mknp1 nz1YO+g4swHXiBJk1Cv1iP43Zku3jsSLE0anEeJKwsa0njM0Dv9jotSNewSg6x8b TGCGXhHArvBl7lPr3LoVGGNT22f5VUSoKB7kxpIYz/VTDK19F9k/lyyFVtnYnUeJ Q8nuFPv+2NLj0h97D6x/Jw1A0jPo43qxy59u5/U01LFL0top2hZijiDAwM3SWVNo wiRPJFuHp5yQZOEsofKtFoIB9TQNkx+yxIToMg/qiS5QIj3MrimSOId+EF0xtplr IKc1dKyiHxKreFvUO0Y/W8nb3MONKOCp55DTC2i2bZdUI7IbHSKj6UM8PMpp1A== =PGwB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW--