Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12 📝 Original message:> > You can not consider ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12
📝 Original message:>
> You can not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent,
> as it could be the world as observed by some.
>

Fraudulent in what sense?

If you mean the legal term, then you'd use the legal "beyond reasonable
doubt" test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes
later once? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500
times in a row? Probably not a fluke.

If you mean under a technical definition then I think Tom Harding has been
researching this topic, though I've only kept half an eye on it. I guess
it's some statistical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure
good incentives with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the
block chain algorithm already works w.r.t orphans.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/4a915041/attachment.html>;