Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-05-21 📝 Original message:Indeed, that has been ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-05-21
📝 Original message:Indeed, that has been proposed but it's a dumb idea and I'm very sceptical
it will go anywhere. Certainly no decision was made. The arguments for it
are based on some quite faulty thinking about economics. Double spend
notifications have been proposed a long time ago, I believe Matt has
indicated some interest in implementing them and that is the right way to
go.
On 20 May 2013 18:57, "Pieter Wuille" <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus <robbak at robbak.com>
> wrote:
> > So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so no
> > one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a larger
> > fee, it will be considered to be the valid one, and the first one
> dropped,
> > as long as the first one has not been confirmed. This makes undoing a
> > mistaken transaction possible.
>
> This has been suggested, but I know of no such decision having been made.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
> New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
> that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
> browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
> and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130520/6d1de076/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Indeed, that has been proposed but it's a dumb idea and I'm very sceptical
it will go anywhere. Certainly no decision was made. The arguments for it
are based on some quite faulty thinking about economics. Double spend
notifications have been proposed a long time ago, I believe Matt has
indicated some interest in implementing them and that is the right way to
go.
On 20 May 2013 18:57, "Pieter Wuille" <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus <robbak at robbak.com>
> wrote:
> > So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so no
> > one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a larger
> > fee, it will be considered to be the valid one, and the first one
> dropped,
> > as long as the first one has not been confirmed. This makes undoing a
> > mistaken transaction possible.
>
> This has been suggested, but I know of no such decision having been made.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
> New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
> that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
> browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
> and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130520/6d1de076/attachment.html>;