From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WdY6n-0005j5-Il for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:51:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=gacrux@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WdY6m-0000YN-Lp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:51:33 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id rl12so3373727iec.32 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:51:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.79.200 with SMTP id l8mr2799219igx.32.1398401487348; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.150] (60-240-212-53.tpgi.com.au. [60.240.212.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pi3sm5218960igb.5.2014.04.24.21.51.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5359E9CB.9050703@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:51:23 +1000 From: Gareth Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=378E4544 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OiHcKA8H34AbS1WsW307WJeeqe5Njfupe" X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gacrux[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WdY6m-0000YN-Lp Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0 confirmation txs using replace-by-fee and game theory 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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:51:33 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --OiHcKA8H34AbS1WsW307WJeeqe5Njfupe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 24/04/14 22:07, Chris Pacia wrote: > It would work but it's an ugly hack IMO. What do people do if they don'= t > have extra to pay when making a purchase? I have 200 mbtc and want to > buy a 200 mbtc phone but I can't because I need 400 mbtc. Sucks for me.= I don't see why it couldn't work with just 200mBTC. * you sign a 200mBTC TX to me, walk out of my shop with the phone * you immediately sign & broadcast a double-spend TX with higher fee * my POS computer (or BitPay's) sees the double spend, immediately spends the initial TX to fees, and sounds the shoplifting alarm. You don't get any money back, but you do get an angry shopkeeper chasing you down the street / calling the police / blacklisting you from the store. Assuming my POS computer's behaviour was completely automated and widespread - and therefore predictable on your part - why would you ever try this? The number of people irrational enough to try this /knowing it never works/ is likely to be way lower than the number who just stuff the phone in their pocket and shoplift the old fashioned way. So I'd be comfortable without the extra 200mBTC collateral :-) --OiHcKA8H34AbS1WsW307WJeeqe5Njfupe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTWenLAAoJEEY5w2E3jkVECVgH/0rApWJyM1vvtxnkl9cbEb29 qdjM0hFzWLIonPLuGEt+PSJQeyY5xxx93/lsignRPtnRknZWSoM1V7dep0kbimpI SskT/oyvxJsciQ8wauo5wWL1YroyU4TsKllsdgBvDiu7vlPIyhpPfElVFUfUYp0Z dmCd8c3LUHzuXHrKYmM0NpqMZuLDvnG9+GZV2NizRcVeudspTl3ZMevu80KfKRU1 2L1h9hj3BvnS0zAuSeOAkpeRQ4cqTJ8+AuGIuo8NxGU29a5twUc4Zq0chdEP0pQj QeNhC7kVws/TWTjKEE33U14v4KGTunl73M46VCyLDxZcTqhUKNI6eX7ncvzvJBY= =EQgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OiHcKA8H34AbS1WsW307WJeeqe5Njfupe--