š
Original date posted:2015-06-30
š Original message:On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:12:52PM +0200, Adam Back wrote:
> Any thoughts on the simplest way to support an opt-in version of full-RBF?
Bundle it in with BIP62 version-2 (or whatever) transactions.
- As you desire for RBF, the BIP62 transactions are already specified to
be opt-in. Nobody has to use them.
- Although BIP62 transactions only prevent third-party mutation, some
people might wrongly assume that they prevent all mutation---including
double spending.
We need to make it clear that even with BIP62 transactions, signers
can still mutate their own transactions---and what better way to do
that than make BIP62 transactions easier to double spend?
The downside I see is possible further delay of full BIP62. Although, I
guess it could go the other way too by having developers who want RBF
help push BIP62 into production.
-Dave
--
David A. Harding
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150630/c739a130/attachment.sig>;
David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub16dā¦x4wrd
2023-06-07 15:41:15
in reply to nevent1qā¦5yqp
Author Public Key
npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdPublished at
2023-06-07 15:41:15Event JSON
{
"id": "8b388c34b93ce1ba0b477ebe2a7df563af93d48a9e834db935917111cb11c159",
"pubkey": "d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2",
"created_at": 1686152475,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a75acfffe44f9748a902379feb70f856b01a438a0303ea9088c6c0d7a3ff10d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"da0d243ae90ca1f1470fc224e525ec50971f43da68217515d6edde75b3f5c1aa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-30\nš Original message:On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:12:52PM +0200, Adam Back wrote:\n\u003e Any thoughts on the simplest way to support an opt-in version of full-RBF?\n\nBundle it in with BIP62 version-2 (or whatever) transactions.\n\n- As you desire for RBF, the BIP62 transactions are already specified to\n be opt-in. Nobody has to use them.\n\n- Although BIP62 transactions only prevent third-party mutation, some\n people might wrongly assume that they prevent all mutation---including\n double spending.\n\n We need to make it clear that even with BIP62 transactions, signers\n can still mutate their own transactions---and what better way to do\n that than make BIP62 transactions easier to double spend?\n\nThe downside I see is possible further delay of full BIP62. Although, I\nguess it could go the other way too by having developers who want RBF\nhelp push BIP62 into production.\n\n-Dave\n-- \nDavid A. Harding\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 473 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150630/c739a130/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "18c3ef384131e6fe2b2ee4db5ec7cec78add54be7215c61432e765b164e5dc7e67220c2845b7b64d147431591a87e9d8c819f880d81a0c943237953f4099ecf6"
}