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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UT35v-0005es-Fx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 04:38:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com designates 74.125.83.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.49; envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com; helo=mail-ee0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-ee0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UT35u-00016O-8s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 04:38:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f49.google.com with SMTP id b47so579881eek.22 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:38:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.15.98.141 with SMTP id bj13mr37389924eeb.29.1366346315947; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.197.7 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:38:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130418081407.GC27888@savin> References: <453bfc69-b2ab-4992-9807-55270fbda0db@email.android.com> <20130418081407.GC27888@savin> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 04:38:35 +0000 Message-ID: From: John Dillon To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -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: 1UT35u-00016O-8s Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Anti DoS for tx replacement 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 Apr 2013 04:38:43 -0000 I understand that Gavin has spent effort on security efforts against small-scale attackers. It's the fact that he is so dismissive of the threat that large attackers play that is what bothers me. But if I am being divisive I understand. I posted a clarification of what the reward is for exactly on the forums: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179612.msg1881800#msg1881800 On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 06:07:23AM +0000, John Dillon wrote: >> Gavin do you actually agree with Mike on this stuff like he implies? >> Because if you do, I think people should know. Myself I wouldn't want >> to be contributing to your salary as a foundation member if you don't >> take Bitcoin security seriously. > > FWIW Gavin has spent quite a bit of time and effort ensuring that > Bitcoin is resistent to DoS attacks, as well as spearheading a move > towards better testing. The latter in particular is helpful against > chain-forking bugs, so better testing is very much a security issue. He > also spearheaded P2SH, and the current efforts to get a payment protocol > implemented. I'm less convinced about his stance against attackers that > pose a threat to the system as a whole, but it's not fair to accuse him > of not taking security seriously. > >> Strict replacement by fee should be written so it can be tested >> properly and people in the Bitcoin ecosystem use proper security >> practices with regard to unconfirmed transactions. I'm willing to >> pledge $500USD to anyone who implements it. That is write the core >> functionality that does replacement by fee, and a simple 'undo' RPC >> command. I would do it myself but my programming is rusty. > > You should clarify if you want this patch to compute fees recursively or > not, IE, should the patch include fees paid by child transactions in how > it computes the total fee the transaction pays. Doing this is > non-trivial, although Luke-Jr has written a patch to do this without > replacement: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647 > > Also, clarify if you want unit-tests and similar things included in the > implementation. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org