📅 Original date posted:2018-02-27
📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> Ah ok, I misunderstood and didn't realise you were talking about the case
> where
> Alice re-spends her unconfirmed payment. Unfortunately I don't think that
> case
> is possible to solve without putting some kind of restriction on spending
> unconfirmed outputs; with a restriction it's fairly simple to solve.
When you say that you don't think it is possible to solve, do you mean that
there is a specific problem with this proposal of replacing transactions
when offered a new transaction whose fee rate exceeds the package fee rate
of the original transaction (and ensuring that the fee increase covers the
size of the transactions being ejected)? Is your concern only about the
ability to computing and track the package fee rate for transactions within
the mempool or is there some other issue you foresee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180227/33ef4b98/attachment.html>;
Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dw…8plrw
2023-06-07 18:10:42
in reply to nevent1q…vg2r
Author Public Key
npub1dw88wd5gqsqn6ufxhf9h03uk8087l7gfzdtez5csjlt6pupu4pwsj8plrwPublished at
2023-06-07 18:10:42Event JSON
{
"id": "5d288d54c8881dd1d6bb47b45d95ffc624dce3f445331fe0b4e94ca5fa41376c",
"pubkey": "6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d",
"created_at": 1686161442,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5383538cd2f56a51e291c00061d21ca9bc4561faee2982afb441fa4fcccaa01f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7d8d8193b9fe8c514ad4fc3f05e6adbb75327a5ad35ac1d667aeb5560f94ef7a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"937f10fc4f78d8676348562d9d886843fbb351d99d6c96423fe9970819962e19"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-02-27\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Ah ok, I misunderstood and didn't realise you were talking about the case\n\u003e where\n\u003e Alice re-spends her unconfirmed payment. Unfortunately I don't think that\n\u003e case\n\u003e is possible to solve without putting some kind of restriction on spending\n\u003e unconfirmed outputs; with a restriction it's fairly simple to solve.\n\n\nWhen you say that you don't think it is possible to solve, do you mean that\nthere is a specific problem with this proposal of replacing transactions\nwhen offered a new transaction whose fee rate exceeds the package fee rate\nof the original transaction (and ensuring that the fee increase covers the\nsize of the transactions being ejected)? Is your concern only about the\nability to computing and track the package fee rate for transactions within\nthe mempool or is there some other issue you foresee?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180227/33ef4b98/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "11faa830eb9c8db69482c167d5a87e4a01af52c5693695126854cb147af7225a6453db6015f90b920ed4de4befc1b4d666695543065030dfd1af8b8c6122d102"
}