Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12 📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12
📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> > IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the
> > one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must
> > go.
>
>
> You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting
> double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic .

Wait, what the heck do you mean by "only if it is actually replacing an
earlier"?

How does my replace-by-fee patch *not* do that?

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000012613986506ef6592952234a6a04946ef946ff0836405ad4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/3a7c7dc8/attachment.sig>;