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 1Z60HG-0003FO-R5 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:40:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.218.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.41; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-oi0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z60HF-0000zx-Ij for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:40:30 +0000 Received: by oiax193 with SMTP id x193so84942978oia.2 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:40:24 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=g6YriF5v0BA46+qPVwSAxt/8mVIyF2JZEvlxo3ghnkg=; b=Jkz6Co8bCDx91PTAEWgKysupwd8LwzTR8zYNQWUN6dDO3UVuZf+26Qx8ft0dXySYQn BwgUgGdXjhollOkwUdhSoEKnquITwTfz5t1yN94Ho8VokZdbZ4zyhlrvjAnNjC7EgUeT hTfkGNeAW8uNbZVfTdS3pkf8ME08Nyf6B27qfliNcCKUYMijQV/FafpvBgAowYUQRNrX LfB/L5fglp/e28NdOmkOxMyZPH9Az/bLq1QHe7gsQ6fmDS0XbQhswHM5CRaL9unfMNy4 ml3BNEb/F8X95McTXCZts4az4AzjonpZc72CPtV9k3eSHCTtafQTi4b2hgfbwumC+kv1 ZWpA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmPPtr3sw8DTdSQzQ3fwBccm44rEOTAcX7/hJ6gfvf334s6bZsteIOkPzUwPL5YTDuiUHmm X-Received: by 10.60.128.200 with SMTP id nq8mr14485641oeb.54.1434735624109; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:40:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:40:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <15ea02cb53046dbe363d5d4876becb6d@riseup.net> References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> <812d8353e66637ec182da31bc0a9aac1@riseup.net> <1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator> <15ea02cb53046dbe363d5d4876becb6d@riseup.net> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:40:00 -0700 Message-ID: To: Justus Ranvier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61 X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 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 0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z60HF-0000zx-Ij Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:40:30 -0000 --047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, wrote: > If we have ECDSA proof that an entity intentionally made and publicly > announced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular > Bitcoins under their control, then why shouldn't that be assumed to be a > fraud attempt unless shown otherwise? > Making multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of various refund contract protocols. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, <justusranvier@r= iseup.net> wrote:
If we have ECDSA proof that an= entity intentionally made and publicly
announced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular
Bitcoins under their control, then why shouldn't that be assumed to be = a
fraud attempt unless shown otherwise?

M= aking multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of vario= us refund contract protocols.=C2=A0

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open sou= rce evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/
--047d7b33906b38e9670518e26b61--