Frank Flores [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:Has anyone from Mycelium ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doublespend attack
detection broken with this kind of irresponsible behavior?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:
> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:
> > If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will
> actively
> > harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or
> POS
> > merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.
>
> Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin
> payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the
> irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks
> deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from
> a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The
> reason we don't yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is
> because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible "enough,"
> but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it
> should not be relied upon.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT
<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>;
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/4829df69/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doublespend attack
detection broken with this kind of irresponsible behavior?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:
> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:
> > If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will
> actively
> > harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or
> POS
> > merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.
>
> Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin
> payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the
> irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks
> deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from
> a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The
> reason we don't yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is
> because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible "enough,"
> but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it
> should not be relied upon.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT
<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>;
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/4829df69/attachment.html>;