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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YPIq4-0006QT-0O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:47:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.181; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ob0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YPIq2-00017X-Cf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:47:55 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id vb8so30445854obc.12 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:47:48 -0800 (PST) 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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2HtTECED+Rxytg2L4Fkjw66ICBkZbBbHG/WkbJgN0bc=; b=fPEyUzIQzmp7J5IQa2RCEwlfjM5F1tkRm7fvbb/wObLzlO+0T9xuIqjoEymtTq1IeW AGBh+Ltehwp+Oc4NMTnl7T31zM28svJCFTGW6MzNv2sWr+wGdwxCnzZjkxuZZhMwCY5+ qSlLKxc46whU0y8ezkW21I+z/kG7cS80Y1bM/xncySVYqGWNsDnUj5nuyn5OCU+HAbYg A8StiP4G/5/XoUi9iCD87aHHuaz65bilouXRQycrtbArrlVwS9LoxZdnnHUARGZo2Y+p Wo5OHlbRXjfrmN0cJJQtXLnFQ4g/iLZGWaF1oceXWtidiY/VBtpxjebvWRy7fsrxn52w 1f3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3GuuRP5vwwVM+LK/DjiFo3P4gpFNGrPObYUai6zEp0bIshb9CX70KNMzQ3RWEQhEfFP0b X-Received: by 10.182.144.136 with SMTP id sm8mr2825897obb.63.1424558868676; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:47:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.219.10 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:47:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> <20150215212512.GR14804@nl.grid.coop> <54E11248.6090401@gmail.com> <20150219085604.GT14804@nl.grid.coop> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:47:28 -0500 Message-ID: To: Mark Friedenbach , =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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: 1YPIq2-00017X-Cf Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:47:56 -0000 "scorched earth" refers to the _real world_ impact such policies would have on present-day 0-conf usage within the bitcoin community. All payment processors AFAIK process transactions through some scoring system, then accept 0-conf transactions for payments. This isn't some theoretical exercise. Like it or not many use insecure 0-conf transactions for rapid payments. Deploying something that makes 0-conf transactions unusable would have a wide, negative impact on present day bitcoin payments, thus "scorched earth" Without adequate decentralized solutions for instant payments, deploying replace-by-fee widely would simply push instant transactions even more into the realm of centralized, walled-garden services. On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Mark Friedenbach wr= ote: > Thank you Jorge for the contribution of the Stag Hunt terminology. It is > much better than a politically charged "scorched earth". > > On Feb 21, 2015 11:10 AM, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n" wrote: >> >> I agree "scorched hearth" is a really bad name for the 0 conf protocol >> based on game theory. I would have preferred "stag hunt" since that's >> basically what it's using (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt) >> but I like the protocol and I think it would be interesting to >> integrate it in the payment protocol. >> Even if that protocol didn't existed or didn't worked, replace-by-fee >> is purely part of a node's policy, not part of consensus. >> >From the whitepaper, 0 conf transactions being secure by the good will >> of miners was never an assumption, and it is clear to me that the >> system cannot provide those guaranties based on such a weak scheme. I >> believe thinking otherwise is naive. >> As to consider non-standard policies "an attack to bitcoin" because >> "that's not how bitcoin used to work", then I guess minimum relay fee >> policies can also be considered "an attack to bitcoin" on the same >> grounds. >> Lastly, "first-seen-wins" was just a simple policy to bootstrap the >> system, but I expect that most nodes will eventually move to policies >> that are economically rational for miners such as replace-by-fee. >> Not only I disagree this will be "the end of bitcoin" or "will push >> the price of the btc miners are mining down", I believe it will be >> something good for bitcoin. >> Since this is apparently controversial I don't want to push for >> replace-by-fee to become the new standard policy (something that would >> make sense to me). But once the policy code is sufficiently modular as >> to support several policies I would like bitcoin core to have a >> CReplaceByFeePolicy alongside CStandardPolicy and a CNullPolicy (no >> policy checks at all). >> One step at a time I guess... >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrot= e: >> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:40:24PM +0200, Adam Gibson wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 02/15/2015 11:25 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Most money/payment systems include some method to reverse or undo >> >> > payments made in error. In these systems, the longer settlement >> >> > times you mention below are a feature, not a bug, and give more >> >> > time for a human to react to errors and system failures. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Settlement has to be final somewhere. That is the whole point of it. >> >> Transfer costs in current electronic payment systems are a direct >> >> consequence of their non-finality. That's the point Satoshi was makin= g >> >> in the introduction to the whitepaper: "With the possibility of >> >> reversal, the need for trust spreads". >> > >> > The problem with that statement is I trust a merchant that I went into >> > a store and made a payment with personally more than I trust the >> > firmware >> > on my hard drive [1]. >> > >> > The attack surface of devices in your computer is huge. A motivated >> > attacker >> > just needs to get an intern into a company that makes some kind of >> > component >> > or system that's in your computer, cloud server, hardware wallet, or >> > what >> > have you that has firmware capable of reading your private keys. >> > >> > With the possibility of mass trojaned hardware, if we are going to tru= st >> > the system, it must somehow allow reversal through a human-in-the-loop= . >> > >> >> There is nothing wrong with having reversible mechanisms built on top >> >> of Bitcoin, and indeed it makes sense for most activity to happen at >> >> those higher layers. It's easy to build things that way, but >> >> impossible to build them the other way: you can't build a >> >> non-reversible layer on top of a reversible layer. >> > >> > We built 'reliable' TCP on top of unreliable ethernet networks. My >> > experience >> > with networking was if you tried to guarantee message delivery at the >> > lowest >> > level, the system got exceedingly complicated, expensive, and brittle. >> > >> > Most applications, in particular paying someone you already trust, are >> > quite >> > happy running on reversible systems, and in some cases more reliable a= nd >> > lower risk. (carrying non-reversible cash is generally considered risk= y) >> > >> > The problem is that if the base currency is assumed to be >> > non-reversible, >> > then it's brittle and becomes 'too big to fail'. >> > >> > Where the blockchain improves on everything else is in transparency. I= f >> > you >> > reverse transactions a lot, it will be obvious from an analysis. I wou= ld >> > much >> > rather deal with a known, predictable, and relatively continous >> > transaction >> > reversal rate (percentage) than have to deal with sudden failures wher= e >> > some anonymous bad actor makes off with a fortune. >> > >> > We already have zero-conf double-spend transaction reversal, why not >> > explicitly >> > extend that a little in a way that senders and receivers have a choice >> > to >> > use it, or not? >> > >> > >> > [1] >> > http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/16/us-usa-cyberspying-idUSKBN0L= K1QV20150216 >> > >> > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >> > Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server >> > from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboar= ds >> > with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & >> > more >> > Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FR= EE >> > >> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D190641631&iu=3D/4140/o= stg.clktrk >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Bitcoin-development mailing list >> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ >> Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server >> from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards >> with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & mor= e >> Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE >> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D190641631&iu=3D/4140/ost= g.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server > from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards > with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more > Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D190641631&iu=3D/4140/ostg= .clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --=20 Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/