On 6/20/2015 5:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > Perhaps it isn’t prudent to push out changes to the relay policy that make > these exploits even easier right now - but we NEED to be applying some kind > of pressure on the merchant end to upgrade their stuff to be more resilient > so that we have more room for changes on things like relay policy without > significant disruption to the network. >
There's no need to worry about causing more problems by relaying double-spends. After a year of watching, it's clear that already only 20% of hash power strictly obeys first-seen. http://i.imgur.com/0bYXrjn.png It may be surprising that - The period of ambiguity is very short - just 2 seconds (this makes sense, given the .5s median propagation time) - Fast double-spends between 2 and 15 seconds are less successful - The steady-state 80% respend success rate is reached after just 15 seconds The >30s data point includes txes that were respent after a long time, sometimes months. Those longer-term respends are to be expected, as people reclaim stuck txes. Paying attention to double-spends is an opportunity for wallets and merchants . With 140 Bitcoin XT nodes online, you're probably already receiving them. Most wallets, including vanilla core, don't even alert when a double-spend of a wallet transaction appears in a block - even though there may still be time to withhold delivery of the goods/services. If FSS RBF gains miner share, fewer successful zero-conf double-spends will occur. Only radical twisted logic finds that to be an undesirable result. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
