Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doublespend attack detection broken with this kind of irresponsible behavior?

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:
> If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will actively
> harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or POS
> merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.

Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The reason we don't yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible "enough," but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it should not be relied upon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



--
MONEY IS OVER!
                                IF YOU WANT IT
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian