{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:00:57PM +0000, justusranvier at riseup.net wrote:\n\u003e On 2015-06-19 10:39, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e      Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing\n\u003e      power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions \n\u003e with\n\u003e      me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has will be replaced if \n\u003e a\n\u003e      conflicting transaction pays a higher fee. There are no requirements \n\u003e for\n\u003e      the replacement transaction to pay addresses that were paid by the\n\u003e      previous transaction.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Intentional fraud is a bad thing to add to a financial protocol.\n\u003e \n\u003e A user who creates conflicting transactions, one that pays someone else \n\u003e and another which does not pay them, and broadcasts both of them, has \n\u003e just self-incriminated themselves by producing prima facie evidence of \n\u003e fraud.\n\nDepends.\n\nIf you ask me to pay you 1BTC at address A and I create tx1 that pays\n1BTC to A1 and 2BTC of chain to C, what's wrong with me creating tx2\nthat still pays 1BTC to A, but now only pays 1.999BTC to C? I'm not\ndefrauding you, I'm just reducing the value of my change address to pay\na higher fee. Similarly if I now need to pay Bob 0.5BTC, I can create\ntx3 paying 1BTC to A, 0.5BTC to B, and 1.498BTC to C.\n\nYet from the point of view of an external observer they have no idea why\nthe transaction outputs reduced in size, nor any way of knowing if fraud\ndid or did not occur.\n\nEqually, maybe you tell me \"Actually, just give me 0.5BTC to cancel out\nthat debt\", in which case I'm not breaking any contract at all by giving\nyou less money than I first promised - the contract has changed.\n\nAgain, none of this can or should be observable to anyone other than the\nparties directly involved.\n\n\u003e It may be the case that since Bitcoin spans multiple legal jurisdictions \n\u003e and can be use anonymously that the victims of such fraud can not rely \n\u003e on legal recourse, and it may also be the case that proof of work is how \n\u003e Bitcoin deals with the aforementioned factors, but regardless \n\u003e un-prosecutable fraud is still fraud and anyone who encourages it should \n\u003e be recognied as a bad actors.\n\u003e \n\u003e Committing vandalism and encouraging fraud to prove a point may be \n\u003e something the network can't stop on a technical level, but there's no \n\u003e reason not to call it out for what it is.\n\nWhat do you think of Bitcoin XT then? It relays double-spends, which\nmakes it much easier to get double-spends to miners than before. In\nparticular you see a lot of zero-fee transactions being replaced by\nfee-paying transactions, relayed through Bitcoin XT nodes and then\nmined. Is that encouraging fraud?\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000003932458055c68d4ee2b6d68441c4764efbdf6b0b1683717\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/8664ea09/attachment.sig\u003e"}