Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)

From: Bryan Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:25:03 -0600

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Adam Back <[email-masked]> wrote:
> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical
> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something
> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the
> current weaker 0-conf transactions.

Scenario: Users are using some system in a way that the system was not
intended to be used. Let me also further constrain the scenario and
suggest that the function (pretend that means instantaneous confirmed
transactions) that the user wants is impossible. So in this scenario,
is it your job as some developer to change the system to do something
it wasn't designed to do? I mean, you certainly weren't the one
telling them they should accept zero confirmation transactions. Also,
I make no claims as to whether this scenario maps accurately to the
current topic.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507