Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17 📝 Original message:On 6/16/2014 8:09 AM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17
📝 Original message:On 6/16/2014 8:09 AM, Daniel Rice wrote:
> What if we solved doublespends like this: If a node receives 2
> transactions that use the same input, they can put both of them into
> the new block as a proof of double spend, but the bitcoins are not
> sent to the outputs of either transactions. They are instead treated
> like a fee and given to the block solver node. This gives miners the
> needed incentive and tools to end doublespends instead of being forced
> to favor one transaction over the other.
Before considering a hard fork with unpredictable effects on the
uncertainty window, it would be interesting to look at a soft fork that
would directly target the goal of reducing the uncertainty window, like
treating locally-detected double-spends aged > T as invalid (see earlier
message "A statistical consensus rule for reducing 0-conf double-spend
risk").
If anything is worth a soft fork, wouldn't reducing the double-spend
uncertainty window by an order of magnitude be in the running?
Reducing the reasons that transactions don't get relayed, which actually
seems to have a shot of happening pretty soon, would also make this kind
of thing work better.
📝 Original message:On 6/16/2014 8:09 AM, Daniel Rice wrote:
> What if we solved doublespends like this: If a node receives 2
> transactions that use the same input, they can put both of them into
> the new block as a proof of double spend, but the bitcoins are not
> sent to the outputs of either transactions. They are instead treated
> like a fee and given to the block solver node. This gives miners the
> needed incentive and tools to end doublespends instead of being forced
> to favor one transaction over the other.
Before considering a hard fork with unpredictable effects on the
uncertainty window, it would be interesting to look at a soft fork that
would directly target the goal of reducing the uncertainty window, like
treating locally-detected double-spends aged > T as invalid (see earlier
message "A statistical consensus rule for reducing 0-conf double-spend
risk").
If anything is worth a soft fork, wouldn't reducing the double-spend
uncertainty window by an order of magnitude be in the running?
Reducing the reasons that transactions don't get relayed, which actually
seems to have a shot of happening pretty soon, would also make this kind
of thing work better.