public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:28:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151230142836.GA19507@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAODYVYf764XafVsbnVnYgsYZtWwKu4Q3cwzL1B=GVWUFjZ5TWg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1236 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:16:22PM +0100, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> That looks very interesting. But is effectively blocking old clients from
> seeing transactions really safe? After all, such transactions are still
> confirmed on the new chain. A person might try to send a similar
> transaction several times, perhaps with increasing fees in an attempt to
> get it to confirm and end up paying someone several times.

It's very dangerous to simply send multiple transactions in such a way
that they don't double-spend each other; you have no good way of knowing
for sure that you're seeing the longest block chain with software alone.

Competently designed software with fee-bumping wouldn't allow that
mistake to be made; the UX should make it clear that txs sent are still
pending until confirmed or clearly double-spent.

> Maybe we could require the tx version number to be increased as well so
> transactions sent from old clients would never confirm? Perhaps your code
> already includes this idea, I need to look at it more closely.

That can mess up pre-signed transations, e.g. refunds.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-30 14:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-30 11:16 [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork Martijn Meijering
2015-12-30 14:28 ` Peter Todd [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-12-30  5:46 joe2015
2015-12-30 10:33 ` Marco Falke
2015-12-30 16:27   ` joe2015
     [not found]     ` <CAKJqnrE7W8aRgracL1cy_hBLWpVsTAQL4qg4ViSP9aCHvM1yvA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-01-03  3:51       ` joe2015
2016-01-04 18:04         ` Nick ODell
2016-01-05  1:26           ` joe2015
2016-01-12  3:58             ` joe2015
2015-12-30 13:29 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-30 13:57   ` Marcel Jamin
2015-12-30 14:19   ` Peter Todd
2015-12-30 14:31     ` Peter Todd
2015-12-30 15:00     ` Jonathan Toomim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151230142836.GA19507@muck \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=martijn.meijering@mevs.nl \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox