That's good - what I had taken away from the replace-by-fee discussions was that it was finally decided. My opinion is that we should be doing what we can to make 0-confs as reliable as possible - which will always be 'not very', but a solid system to notify on attempted double-spends is a good start. I'd like to know how Peter Todd's experiment with the 2BTC reward has gone. On 21 May 2013 13:27, Mike Hearn wrote: > Indeed, that has been proposed but it's a dumb idea and I'm very sceptical > it will go anywhere. Certainly no decision was made. The arguments for it > are based on some quite faulty thinking about economics. Double spend > notifications have been proposed a long time ago, I believe Matt has > indicated some interest in implementing them and that is the right way to > go. > On 20 May 2013 18:57, "Pieter Wuille" wrote: > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus >> wrote: >> > So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so >> no >> > one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a >> larger >> > fee, it will be considered to be the valid one, and the first one >> dropped, >> > as long as the first one has not been confirmed. This makes undoing a >> > mistaken transaction possible. >> >> This has been suggested, but I know of no such decision having been made. >> >> -- >> Pieter >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >