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 1YLvum-0001Nu-Ry for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:42:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.173; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YLvuh-0001tv-BW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:42:52 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id bs8so5296474wib.0 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:42:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.61.145 with SMTP id p17mr8504520wjr.35.1423755761237; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:42:41 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:42:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:42:41 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ml0p5UnlHaoj9k43FeZE0Ax2wIs Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Natanael Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacc0f2654a20050ee5f8e0 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YLvuh-0001tv-BW Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:42:53 -0000 --047d7bacc0f2654a20050ee5f8e0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I see no fundamental difference in outcome from miner collusion in > scorched-fee (which isn't guaranteed to pay the "right" pool!) and miner > collusion in knowingly mining a doublespend transaction. > Well, they're the same thing. Replace-by-fee *is* miner collusion in knowingly mining a double spend, just triggered in a certain way. Remember that you aren't paying the bad pool, the bad pool is paying you. Whichever pool benefits from the scorched earth protocol can simply pick an address out of the transaction it perceived as starting the protocol, and pay that. > Zero-conf needs something else for security. A guarantee it can not be > doublespent in the relevant time frame. > I think this is the core point which many of these debates revolve around. No payment system provides *guarantees*, though some are stronger than others. All they do is manage risk. --047d7bacc0f2654a20050ee5f8e0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I see no fundamental difference i= n outcome from miner collusion in scorched-fee (which isn't guaranteed = to pay the "right" pool!) and miner collusion in knowingly mining= a doublespend transaction.

Well, they're the same= thing. Replace-by-fee is=C2=A0miner collusion in knowingly mining a= double spend, just triggered in a certain way.

Re= member that you aren't paying the bad pool, the bad pool is paying you.= Whichever pool benefits from the scorched earth protocol can simply pick a= n address out of the transaction it perceived as starting the protocol, and= pay that.

Zero-conf needs something else for security. A guarantee it = can not be doublespent in the relevant time frame.

I think this is the core point which many of these debat= es revolve around.

No payment system provides guarantees, though some are = stronger than others. All they do is manage risk.
--047d7bacc0f2654a20050ee5f8e0--