Robert Backhaus [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-05-21 📝 Original message:Not at all - ACK from me, ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-05-21
📝 Original message:Not at all - ACK from me, fwiw. Any attempt at a double spend should be
shouted from the housetops.

What Miners should do with that is still up for debate, it seems. My
opinion is that they should hold on and attempt to confirm the first,
letting it go only if a conflicting transaction is mined elsewhere. (Let
your Yes mean Yes...) But I understand the contrary arguments.


On 21 May 2013 17:04, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm very much in favor of double-spend propagation across the network.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> (to the list:) Is there anyone who is not? (assuming that it doesn't
> allow arbitrary traffic multiplication, which is easily solved)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
> New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
> that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
> browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
> and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130521/bf2601af/attachment.html>;