On Sep 11, 2015 1:18 PM, "Christophe Biocca" wrote: > > It's pretty obvious that Dave is suggesting an alternate tie-breaker: I thought he was proposing a new consesnsus rule. I see, this would be just a policy validation that everybody would be free to ignore (like the "first seen" spend conflict tx replacement policy). I don't see how miners would benefit from running this policy so I would not expect them to run it in the long run (like the "first seen" spend conflict tx replacement policy). If miners don't use it, I don't see how users can benefit from running that policy themselves. They will still have to keep waiting some block confirmation to exponentially reduce the chances of a successful double-spend attack with each new confirmation (as explained in the bitcoin white paper). > Mind you, that risk doesn't apply if we prefer non-empty blocks to > empty blocks and leave it at that, or only switch if the new block > doesn't double spend transactions in the old one, so it's a fixable > issue. How do you know which of 2 blocks with the same height is "newer"? > On 11 September 2015 at 12:32, Jorge Timón > wrote: > > > > On Sep 11, 2015 12:27 PM, "Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: > >> > >> Rather than (promising to, and when they don't actually, at least > >> pretending to) use the first-seen block, I propose that a more sophisticated > >> method of choosing which of two block solutions to accept. > > > > There's already a criterion to chose: the one with more work (in valid > > blocks) on top of it. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >