Andreas Petersson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-10-25 📝 Original message:> There's no reason the ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-10-25
📝 Original message:> There's no reason the signing can't be done all at once. The wallet
> app would create and sign three transactions, paying avg-std.D, avg,
> and avg+std.D fee. It just waits to broadcast the latter two until it
> has to.
i see several reasons why this is problematic.
So how would that work in a setting where the user signs a transaction
created offline, transmitted via Bluetooth via a one-way broadcast?
does it transmit all 3 tx to the receiver and just hopes they he will do
the "right thing"?
>
> On 10/25/13 5:02 AM, Andreas Petersson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Worth thinking about the whole ecosystem of wallets involved;
>>> they all have to handle double-spends gracefully to make tx
>>> replacement of any kind user friendly. We should try to give
>>> people a heads up that this is coming soon if that's your
>>> thinking.
>>
>> If there is a situation where wallets are supposed to constantly
>> monitor the tx propagation and recreate their transactions with
>> different fees, this would make a lot of usecases inconvenient.
>> half-offline bluetooth transactions, users with unstable
>> connections, battery power lost, etc, etc. - and last but not least
>> power concerns on hardware wallets on the bitcoincard (tx signing
>> drains a significant amount of power and should therefore only be
>> done once)
>>
>>
📝 Original message:> There's no reason the signing can't be done all at once. The wallet
> app would create and sign three transactions, paying avg-std.D, avg,
> and avg+std.D fee. It just waits to broadcast the latter two until it
> has to.
i see several reasons why this is problematic.
So how would that work in a setting where the user signs a transaction
created offline, transmitted via Bluetooth via a one-way broadcast?
does it transmit all 3 tx to the receiver and just hopes they he will do
the "right thing"?
>
> On 10/25/13 5:02 AM, Andreas Petersson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Worth thinking about the whole ecosystem of wallets involved;
>>> they all have to handle double-spends gracefully to make tx
>>> replacement of any kind user friendly. We should try to give
>>> people a heads up that this is coming soon if that's your
>>> thinking.
>>
>> If there is a situation where wallets are supposed to constantly
>> monitor the tx propagation and recreate their transactions with
>> different fees, this would make a lot of usecases inconvenient.
>> half-offline bluetooth transactions, users with unstable
>> connections, battery power lost, etc, etc. - and last but not least
>> power concerns on hardware wallets on the bitcoincard (tx signing
>> drains a significant amount of power and should therefore only be
>> done once)
>>
>>