📅 Original date posted:2013-04-19
📝 Original message: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 <pete at petertodd.org> 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
John Dillon [ARCHIVE] /
npub15z…kn0zr
2023-06-07 11:47:11
in reply to nevent1q…sref
Author Public Key
npub15z6e9t07ugx267aj3s3c487pln852ydytzlgu0vkkqxfznyvx4jq4kn0zrSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 11:47:11Event JSON
{
"id": "07514bfb8abb5c00acd71dcc23363f5f42a479fd06da435041dec636a1b3d8bc",
"pubkey": "a0b592adfee20cad7bb28c238a9fc1fccf4511a458be8e3d96b00c914c8c3564",
"created_at": 1686138431,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fcd79b1ede664ebbdecb2022e12316401553d8fac5d552c27e9efefd1d08943",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cb4b69d9a90098c140d515eedb1b238658183fdb39248dcae887005f3143667b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-04-19\n📝 Original message:I understand that Gavin has spent effort on security efforts against\nsmall-scale attackers. It's the fact that he is so dismissive of the\nthreat that large attackers play that is what bothers me. But if I am\nbeing divisive I understand.\n\nI posted a clarification of what the reward is for exactly on the\nforums: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179612.msg1881800#msg1881800\n\nOn Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 06:07:23AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Gavin do you actually agree with Mike on this stuff like he implies?\n\u003e\u003e Because if you do, I think people should know. Myself I wouldn't want\n\u003e\u003e to be contributing to your salary as a foundation member if you don't\n\u003e\u003e take Bitcoin security seriously.\n\u003e\n\u003e FWIW Gavin has spent quite a bit of time and effort ensuring that\n\u003e Bitcoin is resistent to DoS attacks, as well as spearheading a move\n\u003e towards better testing. The latter in particular is helpful against\n\u003e chain-forking bugs, so better testing is very much a security issue. He\n\u003e also spearheaded P2SH, and the current efforts to get a payment protocol\n\u003e implemented. I'm less convinced about his stance against attackers that\n\u003e pose a threat to the system as a whole, but it's not fair to accuse him\n\u003e of not taking security seriously.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Strict replacement by fee should be written so it can be tested\n\u003e\u003e properly and people in the Bitcoin ecosystem use proper security\n\u003e\u003e practices with regard to unconfirmed transactions. I'm willing to\n\u003e\u003e pledge $500USD to anyone who implements it. That is write the core\n\u003e\u003e functionality that does replacement by fee, and a simple 'undo' RPC\n\u003e\u003e command. I would do it myself but my programming is rusty.\n\u003e\n\u003e You should clarify if you want this patch to compute fees recursively or\n\u003e not, IE, should the patch include fees paid by child transactions in how\n\u003e it computes the total fee the transaction pays. Doing this is\n\u003e non-trivial, although Luke-Jr has written a patch to do this without\n\u003e replacement: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, clarify if you want unit-tests and similar things included in the\n\u003e implementation.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org",
"sig": "c1fa3b0babf95fc4e2b5028b42227ee6ac1c05878bd83102181c86b18caae45207c1fe2802bb87ad64eae80aae5e2e9e84e3a45fd1a3a6cb90c7a8074d5c2d72"
}