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 1YPYIQ-0001PR-AN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of airmail.cc designates 75.102.27.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=75.102.27.230; envelope-from=joliver@airmail.cc; helo=cock.li; Received: from cock.li ([75.102.27.230]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YPYIN-0002zL-Ne for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chen.cock.li X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,NO_RECEIVED, NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:05 +0000 From: joliver@airmail.cc To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20150222143353.GA32621@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20150222123428.GA6570@savin.petertodd.org> <20150222143353.GA32621@savin.petertodd.org> Message-ID: <48c47e2a2c7916e7bf63f2219a9aeb72@airmail.cc> X-Sender: joliver@airmail.cc User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 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_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YPYIN-0002zL-Ne Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4) 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: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:18:14 -0000 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.