Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

[joliver@airmail.cc]

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.