Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in
block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that bear
the burden of managing large blocks, no?
Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep
my swimming pool should be.
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.
On Mon, May 25, 2015
Apologies if this has already been stated and I missed it, but:
Can transactions in a buried block be overridden/replaced by RBF?
Or is RBF strictly limited to transactions that have not yet been
incorporated into a block?
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Peter Todd
Thanks for the clarification.
So, since RBF applies only to pending transactions in the mempool awaiting
incorporation into a block, there is a window of opportunity in which the
pending tx is incorporated into a block at the same time that the spender
is constructing and publishing a replacement
See the Open Assets protocol specification for technical details on how a
colored coin (of the Open Asset flavor) is represented in a bitcoin
http://www.CoinPrism.com also has a discussion forum where some colored
coin devs hang
Having thousands of utxos floating around for a single address is clearly a
bad thing - it creates a lot of memory load on bitcoin nodes.
However, having only one utxo for an address is also a bad thing, for
Having several utxos available to spend is good for parallelism,
Mail list logo