Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply.
I know and bookmarked your branch - nice work.
So, to clarify:
- bitcoin core (official / default) 0.10.x currently has First-seen
mempool behavior
- your custom branch uses replace by fee mempool behavior which allows
an user to change anything in a tx (I guess
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:29:28AM +0300, s7r wrote:
What is wrong with the man testing some ideas on his custom branch? This
is how improvements come to life. I saw in the BIPs some really
interesting ideas and nice brainstorming which came from Peter Todd.
Now, my question, if replace by
What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals?
Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods
broadcast a double spend of that transaction to pay Alice nothing? Your
only cost is the higher network fee of the 2nd tx.
Thanks,
-Danny
On Mon, May 25, 2015
The general idea for replace by fee is that it would be restricted so
as to make it safe, eg all the original addresses should receive no
less bitcoin (more addresses can be added).
The scorched earth game theory stuff (allowing removing recipients) is
kind of orthogonal.
Adam
On 26 May 2015 at
What prevents you from writing a bad check using today's systems?
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Danny Thorpe danny.tho...@gmail.com
wrote:
What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals?
Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods
broadcast a
See the first-seen-safe replace-by-fee thread
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Danny Thorpe danny.tho...@gmail.com
wrote:
What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals?
Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you
I am not the one presenting this as some kind of novel attack on
transactions in general.
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Raystonn rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
Trust, regulation, law, and the threat of force. Are you serious?
On 26 May 2015 11:38 am, Allen Piscitello
On Tuesday, 26 May 2015, at 11:22 am, Danny Thorpe wrote:
What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals?
Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods
broadcast a double spend of that transaction to pay Alice nothing? Your
only cost is the higher
Trust, regulation, law, and the threat of force. Are you serious?
On 26 May 2015 11:38 am, Allen Piscitello allen.piscite...@gmail.com wrote:What prevents you from writing a bad check using todays systems?On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Danny Thorpe danny.thorpe@gmail.com wrote:What prevents RBF
You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks
and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading
the anti-scaling mob is for your clients, not Bitcoin. Get the fuck out.
Peter Todd - 8930511 Canada Ltd.
1214-1423 Mississauga Valley Blvd.
Mississauga
Please let's at least have some civility and decorum on this list.
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, joli...@airmail.cc wrote:
You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks
and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading
the anti-scaling mob is
What is wrong with the man testing some ideas on his custom branch? This
is how improvements come to life. I saw in the BIPs some really
interesting ideas and nice brainstorming which came from Peter Todd.
Now, my question, if replace by fee doesn't allow me to change the
inputs or the outputs, I
Well so for example it could have an additional input (to increase the
BTC paid into the transaction) and pay more to an existing change
address and higher fee, or add an additional change address, and leave
a larger fee, or if you had a right-sized coin add an additional input
that all goes to
That attitude and doxxing is not appropriate for this list.
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:30 PM, joli...@airmail.cc wrote:
You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks
and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading
the anti-scaling mob is for
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:03:09AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
CPFP also solves it just fine.
CPFP is a significantly more expensive way of paying fees than RBF,
particularly for the use-case of defragmenting outputs, with cost
savings ranging from 30% to 90%
Case 1: CPFP vs. RBF for increasing
15 matches
Mail list logo
