From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wx5JM-0007Et-Pw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:09:16 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wx5JL-0006PK-Cx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:09:16 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id g10so158957pdj.0 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eXWnXtRATRaNDSDWwiD7fIAT8PkrgmRNRa9oCXuRxEw=; b=EZOdNodBLV8I/XhoiQJ4n+4lXCmZm+VSOcRXi0OSAZl4iAOHJNXXfTmXnIi4ugC4nd DAe/yymdshCh9I3HnrS8hIfKgW0i6yiS0Ap4YcrKilO1OMgcgvOb8UlN6FKe+xdH8FxF AM5Mp55neEiZrxjxMA6b98bWt/9LogbVumEm+g6iW9UHEaUPMfF+sQYNTt/6OGD/GBcf wyM11xVZX6riDXFolehwE0dPxq5qfPSqyI5wOZJLIHMeea0lPWktllzS4KUqnJW3kDYW d+nwNBl3iX0aj0NxNajFlCOoQQggwhKEOkuZWkcUgO+TIHcQq6KAR8bV2qqdgyOxdGcT IjVg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkk3noZFVjfMmlVPRV649rHt1/fvfQwQetrOsrKyW8kj7xLDC+DZmCACXwNi5fcX1Gbse38 X-Received: by 10.68.171.193 with SMTP id aw1mr36296485pbc.117.1403056889608; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-6-44-248.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [99.6.44.248]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ox3sm470099pbb.88.2014.06.17.19.01.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53A0F2FD.7010605@thinlink.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:33 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.192.169 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Headers-End: 1Wx5JL-0006PK-Cx Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension 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: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:09:16 -0000 On 6/16/2014 8:09 AM, Daniel Rice wrote: > What if we solved doublespends like this: If a node receives 2 > transactions that use the same input, they can put both of them into > the new block as a proof of double spend, but the bitcoins are not > sent to the outputs of either transactions. They are instead treated > like a fee and given to the block solver node. This gives miners the > needed incentive and tools to end doublespends instead of being forced > to favor one transaction over the other. Before considering a hard fork with unpredictable effects on the uncertainty window, it would be interesting to look at a soft fork that would directly target the goal of reducing the uncertainty window, like treating locally-detected double-spends aged > T as invalid (see earlier message "A statistical consensus rule for reducing 0-conf double-spend risk"). If anything is worth a soft fork, wouldn't reducing the double-spend uncertainty window by an order of magnitude be in the running? Reducing the reasons that transactions don't get relayed, which actually seems to have a shot of happening pretty soon, would also make this kind of thing work better.