📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03
📝 Original message:On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> 4) A longer term reason - in time, people may choose to not broadcast
> transactions at all in some cases. I think how network speed will be
> funded post-inflation is still an open question. Assuming the simplest
> arrangement where users pay fees, getting transactions into the chain
> has a cost. In cases where you trust the sender to not double spend on
> you, you may keep a fee-less transaction around "in your pocket". Then
> when it's your turn to pay, you use some unconfirmed transactions to
> do so.
This brings up an additional point. If we're mutually trusting
parties (or secured by some kind of external mechanism), and you've
given me a payment which I haven't broadcast for confirmation— and
later we make another transactions I should be able to offer you the
original unconfirmed txn and ask if you'd instead be willing to write
a replacement that combines both payments.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 10:44:14
in reply to nevent1q…pr97
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 10:44:14Event JSON
{
"id": "913b33e0b0bc09c183030b32fec05a210a0dba2a256e87e0f2b7d2f417ef94a9",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686134654,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1bd78b419247dfb60fa2e8b1cf4983b406411160c7aa6e19780a4034c5da34de",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1bb33e6312eb0ab510178c57acbfd7ca55bb684f23f15c57b426b215d67e7149",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e 4) A longer term reason - in time, people may choose to not broadcast\n\u003e transactions at all in some cases. I think how network speed will be\n\u003e funded post-inflation is still an open question. Assuming the simplest\n\u003e arrangement where users pay fees, getting transactions into the chain\n\u003e has a cost. In cases where you trust the sender to not double spend on\n\u003e you, you may keep a fee-less transaction around \"in your pocket\". Then\n\u003e when it's your turn to pay, you use some unconfirmed transactions to\n\u003e do so.\n\nThis brings up an additional point. If we're mutually trusting\nparties (or secured by some kind of external mechanism), and you've\ngiven me a payment which I haven't broadcast for confirmation— and\nlater we make another transactions I should be able to offer you the\noriginal unconfirmed txn and ask if you'd instead be willing to write\na replacement that combines both payments.",
"sig": "5efbcd11a78e0ca1b907adb8886d4981e5e70f9fb6d4fa8555700770b5c5aff16577274b51e064888a23c7e5f849109d7b8ee8a8987e2fe29e8e590ce3f5a87f"
}