On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:37 PM, zooko wrote:
> Folks:
>
> I'm very interested in this idea. I got really excited about it and started
> trying to write up schemes to implement it. Like much of Bitcoin, it gets my
> head spinning, but then it turns out I don't really understand it.
>
> Because wh
Folks:
I'm very interested in this idea. I got really excited about it and started
trying to write up schemes to implement it. Like much of Bitcoin, it gets my
head spinning, but then it turns out I don't really understand it.
Because when my write-ups of implementations all turned to dust and as
What if a transaction is tagged as eligible for replace by fee possibly
using the lock_time (0xFFFE) so the parties involved can decide
which approach works best for them. If the receiving side doesn't see
the type of transaction they want they consider it invalid. The payment
protocol ca
I've been wondering why a blockchain is necessary at all. Ripple doesn't
have one (I haven't looked closely at their implementation but it seems
reasonable to go without one).
When you do blockchain based transaction confirmations, you give full
authority to the miner that finds the transaction bl
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:54:25PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> One point that was only recently exposed to me is that replacement
> combined with child-pays-for-parent creates a new kind of double spend
> _defense_: If someone double spends a payment to an online key of
> yours, you can instant
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:39:30PM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote:
> That's good - what I had taken away from the replace-by-fee discussions was
> that it was finally decided.
>
> My opinion is that we should be doing what we can to make 0-confs as
> reliable as possible - which will always be 'not
Not at all - ACK from me, fwiw. Any attempt at a double spend should be
shouted from the housetops.
What Miners should do with that is still up for debate, it seems. My
opinion is that they should hold on and attempt to confirm the first,
letting it go only if a conflicting transaction is mined el
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I'm very much in favor of double-spend propagation across the network.
Absolutely.
(to the list:) Is there anyone who is not? (assuming that it doesn't
allow arbitrary traffic multiplication, which is easily solved)
-
8 matches
Mail list logo
