š
Original date posted:2014-06-16
š Original message:Mike Hearn <mike <at> plan99.net> writes:
> As long as miners stick to Satoshi's first seen rule, which is the
default, it's useful:
>
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
>
>
>
>
> (this is the famous "snack machine" thread from 2010)
>
> If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then
they (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay
GreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product
Lawrence, let's hope they don't collectively lemming us all off a cliff by
doing that ;)
I assume we can't enforce to miners rules about which tx will go in and
which won't and therefore whether this will cause more or less double
spends.
I mean, you can try but I would rather have to option to pick an third party
instant provider explicitly than enforce bigger rules on mining which would
IMHO lead to implicit centralization.
Lawrence Nahum [ARCHIVE] /
npub1q9ā¦w5u98
2023-06-07 15:22:46
in reply to nevent1qā¦8n0v
Author Public Key
npub1q96r67z2pgf6zg3t7zkxd77fdgzz8euhwazmkdh4adrlrlt40unqnw5u98Published at
2023-06-07 15:22:46Event JSON
{
"id": "f7258a451323410a058902e86b118d241c9ddf861f1d8a9be0c63ad9840f24ba",
"pubkey": "01743d784a0a13a1222bf0ac66fbc96a0423e7977745bb36f5eb47f1fd757f26",
"created_at": 1686151366,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed0eede28e160c2ef8ddd5af1ee3069fdb0eb5f4c939c1c09a1a5f338c30c628",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f69272fa14abad491f6f5cfb887dbe2d1a2b203a8ecb802abb2172543b6acc05",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2014-06-16\nš Original message:Mike Hearn \u003cmike \u003cat\u003e plan99.net\u003e writes:\n\n\u003e As long as miners stick to Satoshi's first seen rule, which is the \ndefault, it's useful:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e (this is the famous \"snack machine\" thread from 2010)\n\u003e \n\u003e If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then \nthey (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay \nGreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product \nLawrence, let's hope they don't collectively lemming us all off a cliff by \ndoing that ;)\n\n\nI assume we can't enforce to miners rules about which tx will go in and \nwhich won't and therefore whether this will cause more or less double \nspends.\n\n\nI mean, you can try but I would rather have to option to pick an third party \ninstant provider explicitly than enforce bigger rules on mining which would \nIMHO lead to implicit centralization.",
"sig": "7eae5316c333640c5012539cb04de962ca2a1959190372fbcd78c521be741ea586a9366e90d24a86f6447e418af93d8c90890b58ccea0795ad73635a1a7e8efd"
}