From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WcooM-0006rW-4O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:29:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.54; envelope-from=jan.moller@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WcooK-0001R0-AH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:29:30 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z60so425580qgd.13 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:29:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.66.133 with SMTP id n5mr54081936qci.0.1398227362851; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.24.208 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:29:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140422213128.GB2578@savin> References: <20140422213128.GB2578@savin> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:29:22 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jan_M=C3=B8ller?= To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (jan.moller[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.192.54 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WcooK-0001R0-AH Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double-spending unconfirmed transactions is a lot easier than most people realise X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: jan.moller@gmail.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:29:30 -0000 --001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Of course, this is an especially difficult case, as you must send the >double-spend after the original transaction - normally just sending a >non-standard tx to Eligius first would suffice. Note how this defeats >Andresen's double-spend-relay patch(3) as proposed since the >double-spend is a non-standard transaction. Why can't you send a non-standard tx to Eligius first in this scenario?=E2= =80=8B Is it because LuckyBit is connected directly to Eligius, and does Eligius relay (not only mine) non-standard transactions? --001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Of course, this is an especially difficult case, as y= ou must send the
>double-spend after the original transaction - normally just sending a<= /span>
>non-standard tx to Eligius first would suffice. Note how this defeats<= /span>
>Andresen's double-spend-relay patch(3) as proposed since the
>double-spend is a non-standard transaction.

Why can= 't you send a non-standard tx to Eligius first in this scenario?=E2=80= =8B
Is it because LuckyBit is connected directly to=C2=A0Eligius, and does= Eligius relay (not only mine) non-standard transactions?
--001a11c2ffee47317504f7ae2d6e--