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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6S00-0002w9-Bf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:16:32 +0000 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6Rzu-0001vd-HS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:16:32 +0000 Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so46989768wig.0 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:16:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=p9qKBFJzX1QLrIFji9cN0RohWz5hbid/gMLybK3EvOA=; b=dWl9wRPqSs6gL/Kvbwa20Y1Pel7sk97SABz8dep5ixR5PnZG/t8UNJdwvjGamhLeTE UelH05BbjNMqwzuCkTUdh7dytTgZ6DL2JWigwkepODuQV9EU/8lfkazzilZCyWhUp1eZ Vlf7RvebpamML3bhBnIj/e3LBjhMTb+o3chjqit63KQwzVfGDhEOF1obVTk6ldNixCD+ 7g6YWSR8laW7+J7f3JUjO9mdt7FfUXlhYJNQyJLIXNGSOTwYbVvcKlQcqBevjHvqKRY1 Q1MwXoEZ92pafNHyW5dzCQY8Jmxw1N9ZBj0n93+3P59BZ6rCyKCuaRymjcqHg8R9cyrd As0w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlfo1IcXs+AAjLGFz8YMTVmyJBG8F9wW/uZK3sbcjDqwCaCOJBG0R+6SMXeue2VJ0Y5ucs+ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr36319295wjq.109.1434842180449; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.139.235 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:16:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <20150619151127.GA11263@savin.petertodd.org> <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:16:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z6Rzu-0001vd-HS Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Justus Ranvier Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee 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: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 23:16:32 -0000 On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the require= ment that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come fr= om anywhere at any time=E2=80=A6 I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument from authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I think the assumptions while using the system should be: "As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers." I can't say for sure what was meant by "attacking the network" in this context but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and proof-of-work-timestamped history. Unconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering unconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a universal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work in the first place. Alternative policies are NOT attacks on the network.