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 <mike@plan99.net> 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" <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus <robbak@robbak.com> 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