📅 Original date posted:2015-03-01
📝 Original message:> Seems like a good deal, what am I missing?
The disruption caused to every other user or the bitcoin network.
Transactions unconfirmed, history is rewritten, the poor Byzantine General
who sent his soldiers off to battle finds out that his scouts have been
paid to change their reports.
Neil
On 2 March 2015 at 06:59, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer at hozed.org> wrote:
> So let's play this out a little.. Let's call it "Solomon's spend[1]"
>
> Exchange gets hacked, bitcoins move.
>
> The exchange has a contract with an insurance company and miners for
> 'scorched earth' theft response that creates a double-spend of the
> original transaction.
>
> So now there's a 10,000 bitcoin incentive for miners to roll back the
> chain and start (re)mining the block where the theft occurred.
>
> The exchange gets an insurance payout, some miner wins the lottery, and
> the thief gets nothing. Seems like a good deal, what am I missing?
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 04:06:13AM -0800, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> > I should note that my proposal does require a change to the consensus
> > rules...but getting bitcoin to scale will require this no matter what.
> >
> > - Eric Lombrozo
> > On Feb 22, 2015 3:41 AM, "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me we're confusing two completely different motivations for
> > > double-spending. One is the ability to replace a fee, the other is the
> > > ability to replace outputs.
> > >
> > > If the double-spend were to merely add or remove inputs (but keep at
> least
> > > one input in common, of course), it seems fairly safe to assume it's
> the
> > > former, a genuine fee replacement. Even allowing for things like
> coinjoin,
> > > none of the payees would really care either way.
> > >
> > > Conversely, if at least one of the inputs were kept but none of the
> > > outputs were, we can be confident it's the the latter.
> > >
> > > It is possible to build a wallet that always does the former when doing
> > > fee replacement by using another transaction to create an output with
> > > exactly the additional desired fee.
> > >
> > > If we can clearly distinguish these two cases then the fee replacement
> > > case can be handled by relaying both and letting miners pick one or the
> > > other while the output replacement case could be handled by rewarding
> > > everything to a miner (essentially all outputs are voided...made
> > > unredeemable...and all inputs are added to coinbase) if the miner
> includes
> > > the two conflicting transactions in the same block.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't this essentially solve the problem?
> > >
> > > - Eric Lombrozo
> > > On Feb 21, 2015 8:09 PM, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc>
> wrote:
> > >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> 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"
> > >>
> > >> > And maybe by maintaining first seen policies we're harming the
> system
> > >> > in the long term by encouraging people to widely deploy systems
> based
> > >> > on extremely weak assumptions.
> > >>
> > >> Lacking a coded, reviewed alternative, that's only a platitude.
> > >> Widely used 0-conf payments are where we're at today. Simply ceasing
> > >> the "maintaining [of] first seen policies" alone is simply not a
> > >> realistic option. The negative impact to today's userbase would be
> > >> huge.
> > >>
> > >> Instant payments need a security upgrade, yes.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jeff Garzik
> > >> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> > >> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > >> Bitcoin-development at 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=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer'
> hozer at hozed.org
> 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul
> grid.coop
>
> Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,
> nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored
> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for
> all
> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs
> to
> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150302/aecaa366/attachment.html>;
Neil Fincham [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2…7z639
2023-06-07 15:31:40
in reply to nevent1q…5md8
Author Public Key
npub1y25xs5rjz5c9lfrkhhfqznk8pmltd8j844g3dg06ec9qmgfxwj2sn7z639Published at
2023-06-07 15:31:40Event JSON
{
"id": "330056a678145510f9df0abd9285216bc1e81d6d9b4841dfe463098c4f1409c4",
"pubkey": "22a868507215305fa476bdd2014ec70efeb69e47ad5116a1face0a0da1267495",
"created_at": 1686151900,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fff8c1accb2d7e9cf30e26379c2767633e21c14ebd8f4fed8b925872943892ac",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"77064c02d0c9f9d1f439ba6a0224c0f973c43d9a095c82cd74b2c9a14a76dd14",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-01\n📝 Original message:\u003e Seems like a good deal, what am I missing?\n\nThe disruption caused to every other user or the bitcoin network.\nTransactions unconfirmed, history is rewritten, the poor Byzantine General\nwho sent his soldiers off to battle finds out that his scouts have been\npaid to change their reports.\n\nNeil\n\nOn 2 March 2015 at 06:59, Troy Benjegerdes \u003chozer at hozed.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e So let's play this out a little.. Let's call it \"Solomon's spend[1]\"\n\u003e\n\u003e Exchange gets hacked, bitcoins move.\n\u003e\n\u003e The exchange has a contract with an insurance company and miners for\n\u003e 'scorched earth' theft response that creates a double-spend of the\n\u003e original transaction.\n\u003e\n\u003e So now there's a 10,000 bitcoin incentive for miners to roll back the\n\u003e chain and start (re)mining the block where the theft occurred.\n\u003e\n\u003e The exchange gets an insurance payout, some miner wins the lottery, and\n\u003e the thief gets nothing. Seems like a good deal, what am I missing?\n\u003e\n\u003e [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 04:06:13AM -0800, Eric Lombrozo wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I should note that my proposal does require a change to the consensus\n\u003e \u003e rules...but getting bitcoin to scale will require this no matter what.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e \u003e On Feb 22, 2015 3:41 AM, \"Eric Lombrozo\" \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e It seems to me we're confusing two completely different motivations for\n\u003e \u003e \u003e double-spending. One is the ability to replace a fee, the other is the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e ability to replace outputs.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e If the double-spend were to merely add or remove inputs (but keep at\n\u003e least\n\u003e \u003e \u003e one input in common, of course), it seems fairly safe to assume it's\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e former, a genuine fee replacement. Even allowing for things like\n\u003e coinjoin,\n\u003e \u003e \u003e none of the payees would really care either way.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Conversely, if at least one of the inputs were kept but none of the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e outputs were, we can be confident it's the the latter.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e It is possible to build a wallet that always does the former when doing\n\u003e \u003e \u003e fee replacement by using another transaction to create an output with\n\u003e \u003e \u003e exactly the additional desired fee.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e If we can clearly distinguish these two cases then the fee replacement\n\u003e \u003e \u003e case can be handled by relaying both and letting miners pick one or the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e other while the output replacement case could be handled by rewarding\n\u003e \u003e \u003e everything to a miner (essentially all outputs are voided...made\n\u003e \u003e \u003e unredeemable...and all inputs are added to coinbase) if the miner\n\u003e includes\n\u003e \u003e \u003e the two conflicting transactions in the same block.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Wouldn't this essentially solve the problem?\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e \u003e \u003e On Feb 21, 2015 8:09 PM, \"Jeff Garzik\" \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e This isn't some theoretical exercise. Like it or not many use\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e insecure 0-conf transactions for rapid payments. Deploying\n\u003e something\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e that makes 0-conf transactions unusable would have a wide, negative\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e impact on present day bitcoin payments, thus \"scorched earth\"\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e And maybe by maintaining first seen policies we're harming the\n\u003e system\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e in the long term by encouraging people to widely deploy systems\n\u003e based\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e on extremely weak assumptions.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Lacking a coded, reviewed alternative, that's only a platitude.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Widely used 0-conf payments are where we're at today. Simply ceasing\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e the \"maintaining [of] first seen policies\" alone is simply not a\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e realistic option. The negative impact to today's userbase would be\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e huge.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Instant payments need a security upgrade, yes.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e --\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Jeff Garzik\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and\n\u003e Dashboards\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration \u0026\n\u003e more\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations,\n\u003e FREE\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \u003e Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server\n\u003e \u003e from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards\n\u003e \u003e with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration \u0026 more\n\u003e \u003e Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e \u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e\n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer'\n\u003e hozer at hozed.org\n\u003e 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul\n\u003e grid.coop\n\u003e\n\u003e Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,\n\u003e nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,\n\u003e sponsored\n\u003e by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for\n\u003e all\n\u003e things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs\n\u003e to\n\u003e news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the\n\u003e conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150302/aecaa366/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "4ec437c870c4829a1595586ccfc91f63077932eb3e266b7d6323a28d372a7ca53bb3521954f09944f211aa99f2387a71a80569ed68b0201ad938c88dc4e3f011"
}