Troy Benjegerdes [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-12-17 📝 Original message:I want to get some ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-12-17
📝 Original message:I want to get some feedback.. I've used distributed version control
systems for a long time, and the most useful feature is to be able
to merge two different forks.
So what's the equivalent of this for Bitcoin or other crypto-currencies?
Let's suppose that me and my friends get 'islanded' from the rest of
the internet for a week, but we still want to trade bitcoin. It would
work if there are local miners, until we reconnect.
Suppose we have the main chain (Alice), while bob is on a boat, trading
with some friends, but has no network connectivity.
When bob reconnects with Alice, a 'Merge' transaction happens where a
miner looks at bob's forked blockchain, sees no double-spends, and
includes BOTH chains.
Now suppose someone on bob's boat has a buggy client, or sent a
transaction before disconnect that results in a double-spend on the
merge.
So we have a merge conflict, which generally requires human interaction,
so bob and his friends broadcast a MERGE request with a transaction fee
sufficient to cover reconciling the double-spends, AND incentivize a
miner to do some extra work to merge.
Thoughts everyone?
-- Troy
📝 Original message:I want to get some feedback.. I've used distributed version control
systems for a long time, and the most useful feature is to be able
to merge two different forks.
So what's the equivalent of this for Bitcoin or other crypto-currencies?
Let's suppose that me and my friends get 'islanded' from the rest of
the internet for a week, but we still want to trade bitcoin. It would
work if there are local miners, until we reconnect.
Suppose we have the main chain (Alice), while bob is on a boat, trading
with some friends, but has no network connectivity.
When bob reconnects with Alice, a 'Merge' transaction happens where a
miner looks at bob's forked blockchain, sees no double-spends, and
includes BOTH chains.
Now suppose someone on bob's boat has a buggy client, or sent a
transaction before disconnect that results in a double-spend on the
merge.
So we have a merge conflict, which generally requires human interaction,
so bob and his friends broadcast a MERGE request with a transaction fee
sufficient to cover reconciling the double-spends, AND incentivize a
miner to do some extra work to merge.
Thoughts everyone?
-- Troy