On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 7:12 AM James MacWhyte wrote:
> @Billy I like the idea. It is very obvious how useful an opcode like this
> would be! (My background is in wallet implementation)
>
> @Russell I do understand your concerns of monotonism, however I'm having a
> hard time really coming up wit
@Billy I like the idea. It is very obvious how useful an opcode like this
would be! (My background is in wallet implementation)
@Russell I do understand your concerns of monotonism, however I'm having a
hard time really coming up with an attack vector. You said "one can design
a wallet to passivel
> one can design a wallet to passively take advantage of reorgs
It does sound like this is the central issue. I can certainly see that it's
materially different than current double spending ability. Double spending
via reorgs today requires either active participation and above-average
connection
> Note, I think that the tx mutation proposal relies on interactivity in the
> worst-case scenario where a counterparty wants to increase its fee-bumping
> output from the contract balance. This interactivity may lure a counterparty
> to alway lock the worst-case fee-bumping reserve in the outpu
