public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: joliver@airmail.cc
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <48c47e2a2c7916e7bf63f2219a9aeb72@airmail.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150222143353.GA32621@savin.petertodd.org>

On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:
>> My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed
>> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical
>> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something
>> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the
>> current weaker 0-conf transactions.
>> 
>> If I understand this is also your own motivation.
> 
> Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective 
> tools
> to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their
> effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few
> people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore.

You mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while 
working for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to 
sell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this.

I and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out 
that they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success 
rates.

> As for the
> remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my
> consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person
> trading for instance.

A "team"

You mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized 
LocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions.




  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-22 15:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-22  8:02 [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4) Adam Back
2015-02-22 12:34 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 13:29   ` Natanael
2015-02-22 13:50     ` Matt Whitlock
2015-02-22 14:07       ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 16:00       ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-22 16:17         ` Natanael
2015-02-22 16:25           ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-22 16:36             ` Natanael
2015-02-23 11:03       ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-22 14:44     ` Natanael
2015-02-22 14:11   ` Adam Back
2015-02-22 14:25     ` Bryan Bishop
2015-02-22 14:33     ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 15:18       ` joliver [this message]
2015-02-22 15:41         ` Peter Todd

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=48c47e2a2c7916e7bf63f2219a9aeb72@airmail.cc \
    --to=joliver@airmail.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /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