On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > > IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the > > one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must > > go. > > > You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting > double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic . Wait, what the heck do you mean by "only if it is actually replacing an earlier"? How does my replace-by-fee patch *not* do that? -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000012613986506ef6592952234a6a04946ef946ff0836405ad4