Joseph Gleason ⑈ [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-04-10 📝 Original message:2) -1 doesn't mean ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-04-10
📝 Original message:2) -1 doesn't mean conflicted, it means the transaction is not only
unconfirmed buy depends on another unconfirmed transaction.
1) Depends on what you mean by trusted. If you are giving the user online
access to something that costs you next to nothing to revoke if there is a
problem later, no problem. 0-conf is great. If you are pre-pairing
shipments and will be able to pull the box from the ship stream if there is
a problem, also no problem. If you are sending some other non-reversible
thing like crypto, then you might want to be careful. It really depends on
the value of your things and your tolerance of risk.
In my opinion, an zero-conf transaction is way way better than a credit
card preauth or a check in hand.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:34 PM Maksim Solovjov via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have few questions regarding ListTransaction RPC call and I hope you can
> help me.
> Documentation for the RPC call is here:
> https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#listtransactions
>
> 1. What does it mean for a transaction ( with 0 confirmations ) to be
> *trusted* or not?
> There is such field in the response of ListTransaction
> As far as I know bitcoin - nothing is trusted unless there are some
> numbers of confirmations.
> How does this value is set to true or false?
>
> 2. When does *confirmations* can be -1 ( conflicted )?
> What does it mean to have conflicted transaction?
> Is it about Transaction Malleability? Double Spend? or both?
>
> 3. *walletconflicts*. What if I add watch-only address to my bitcoind
> process.
> This address will not be a part of my wallet.
> Now, someone will pay me to this address and someone else will make
> Transaction Malleability ( for the sake of example, lets assume this second
> one will be confirmed, not the original one ).
> Will I get a first transaction in *walletconflicts* array when
> ListTransaction will return me second transaction in the response?
>
> Thank you in advance!
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180410/212bdb4e/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:2) -1 doesn't mean conflicted, it means the transaction is not only
unconfirmed buy depends on another unconfirmed transaction.
1) Depends on what you mean by trusted. If you are giving the user online
access to something that costs you next to nothing to revoke if there is a
problem later, no problem. 0-conf is great. If you are pre-pairing
shipments and will be able to pull the box from the ship stream if there is
a problem, also no problem. If you are sending some other non-reversible
thing like crypto, then you might want to be careful. It really depends on
the value of your things and your tolerance of risk.
In my opinion, an zero-conf transaction is way way better than a credit
card preauth or a check in hand.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:34 PM Maksim Solovjov via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have few questions regarding ListTransaction RPC call and I hope you can
> help me.
> Documentation for the RPC call is here:
> https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#listtransactions
>
> 1. What does it mean for a transaction ( with 0 confirmations ) to be
> *trusted* or not?
> There is such field in the response of ListTransaction
> As far as I know bitcoin - nothing is trusted unless there are some
> numbers of confirmations.
> How does this value is set to true or false?
>
> 2. When does *confirmations* can be -1 ( conflicted )?
> What does it mean to have conflicted transaction?
> Is it about Transaction Malleability? Double Spend? or both?
>
> 3. *walletconflicts*. What if I add watch-only address to my bitcoind
> process.
> This address will not be a part of my wallet.
> Now, someone will pay me to this address and someone else will make
> Transaction Malleability ( for the sake of example, lets assume this second
> one will be confirmed, not the original one ).
> Will I get a first transaction in *walletconflicts* array when
> ListTransaction will return me second transaction in the response?
>
> Thank you in advance!
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180410/212bdb4e/attachment.html>;