In the innocent use case of this opcode, a double-spend has already occurred, and this should be a strict improvement. In the non-innocent abuse of this opcode, I don't see that it's any worse than simply double-spending.
Would this proposal be better or otherwise more acceptable, if a specified height more recent than 100 blocks deep causes the script to fail? This would increase delays in recovering the double-spend situation of course... but less than 24h. Luke On Friday, September 23, 2016 1:43:15 PM Russell O'Connor wrote: > I believe Bitcoin currently enjoys the property that during an "innocent" > re-org, i.e. a reorg in which no affected transactions are being double > spent, all affected transactions can always eventually get replayed, so > long as the re-org depth is less than 100. > > My concern with this proposed operation is that it would destroy this > property. > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > This BIP describes a new opcode (OP_CHECKBLOCKATHEIGHT) for the Bitcoin > > scripting system to address reissuing bitcoin transactions when the coins > > they > > spend have been conflicted/double-spent. > > > > https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbah/bip-cbah.mediawiki > > > > Does this seem like a good idea/approach? > > > > Luke > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
