📅 Original date posted:2013-04-18
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130418/1e4a30cd/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 11:47:08
in reply to nevent1q…gu6h
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 11:47:08Event JSON
{
"id": "cb4b69d9a90098c140d515eedb1b238658183fdb39248dcae887005f3143667b",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686138428,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fcd79b1ede664ebbdecb2022e12316401553d8fac5d552c27e9efefd1d08943",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"20e420d9f781342812b35bae2c6b2e45d9885b6e17405bf7dec9e8519eaad107",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a0b592adfee20cad7bb28c238a9fc1fccf4511a458be8e3d96b00c914c8c3564"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-04-18\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 06:07:23AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:\n\u003e Gavin do you actually agree with Mike on this stuff like he implies?\n\u003e Because if you do, I think people should know. Myself I wouldn't want\n\u003e to be contributing to your salary as a foundation member if you don't\n\u003e take Bitcoin security seriously.\n\nFWIW Gavin has spent quite a bit of time and effort ensuring that\nBitcoin is resistent to DoS attacks, as well as spearheading a move\ntowards better testing. The latter in particular is helpful against\nchain-forking bugs, so better testing is very much a security issue. He\nalso spearheaded P2SH, and the current efforts to get a payment protocol\nimplemented. I'm less convinced about his stance against attackers that\npose a threat to the system as a whole, but it's not fair to accuse him\nof not taking security seriously.\n\n\u003e Strict replacement by fee should be written so it can be tested\n\u003e properly and people in the Bitcoin ecosystem use proper security\n\u003e practices with regard to unconfirmed transactions. I'm willing to\n\u003e pledge $500USD to anyone who implements it. That is write the core\n\u003e functionality that does replacement by fee, and a simple 'undo' RPC\n\u003e command. I would do it myself but my programming is rusty.\n\nYou should clarify if you want this patch to compute fees recursively or\nnot, IE, should the patch include fees paid by child transactions in how\nit computes the total fee the transaction pays. Doing this is\nnon-trivial, although Luke-Jr has written a patch to do this without\nreplacement: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647\n\nAlso, clarify if you want unit-tests and similar things included in the\nimplementation.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130418/1e4a30cd/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "3d2fe916d03ce2233bda491bcafd16264c4ae43c66a05c35df8790c2172171ffad46b0df98155bdc3deca049ae65f41436efebfb950a0593d457f07368f5f2ab"
}