📅 Original date posted:2011-08-04
🗒️ Summary of this message: Satoshi discussed detecting double spends in 2010. Gregory's idea seems useful, and a NAK message for transactions could aid debugging and testing.
📝 Original message:> If it's still an experiment why is there such huge objection to pretty much
> every change anyone proposes?
I don't think there are huge objections to every change. You've only
really argued about this with Matt ;)
The vending machine/detecting double spends issue was discussed by
Satoshi in July 2010:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
He mentioned payment processors that could "alert the transaction is bad".
Gregorys idea looks sound to me. It'd be useful, though, to have a NAK
message for transactions anyway (not propagated). It's possible to get
yourself into a situation today where you connect to nodes that refuse
to relay your transaction for some reason (perhaps your peers are
using old fee rules, or you are) but you think the transaction was
relayed. The user is left wondering why the spend didn't confirm.
If nodes sent a message saying "I refuse to process this tx because
<reason>" it'd make debugging and testing easier as well.
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 02:12:40
in reply to nevent1q…tnf2
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 02:12:40Event JSON
{
"id": "59efb3c7fd044a6a12ee467e09ddb316f3209476f67026c981c804e3fd161fd2",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686103960,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f7bac66510d148bc7cd5c36f79897fafe3410a2bc9df45238a65f8429b9407f0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f65cd5cbaf41884941f99482a349c813d886e5e2e35d15153f519aec8e95affb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-08-04\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Satoshi discussed detecting double spends in 2010. Gregory's idea seems useful, and a NAK message for transactions could aid debugging and testing.\n📝 Original message:\u003e If it's still an experiment why is there such huge objection to pretty much\n\u003e every change anyone proposes?\n\nI don't think there are huge objections to every change. You've only\nreally argued about this with Matt ;)\n\nThe vending machine/detecting double spends issue was discussed by\nSatoshi in July 2010:\n\n https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819\n\nHe mentioned payment processors that could \"alert the transaction is bad\".\n\nGregorys idea looks sound to me. It'd be useful, though, to have a NAK\nmessage for transactions anyway (not propagated). It's possible to get\nyourself into a situation today where you connect to nodes that refuse\nto relay your transaction for some reason (perhaps your peers are\nusing old fee rules, or you are) but you think the transaction was\nrelayed. The user is left wondering why the spend didn't confirm.\n\nIf nodes sent a message saying \"I refuse to process this tx because\n\u003creason\u003e\" it'd make debugging and testing easier as well.",
"sig": "fc43274d419386f5cf13e792e0fe982a5db3aa3f804f11397279fb14137fcfc6a465e19b9f9942d9285176c01cebd0eaa51908b51be8e372f4e22a377999e234"
}