📅 Original date posted:2016-10-02
📝 Original message:> But I would argue that in this scenario, the only way it
> would become invalid is the equivalent of a double-spend... and therefore
> it
> may be acceptable in relation to this argument.
>
The values returned by OP_COUNT_ACKS vary in their exact value depending on
which block this transaction ends up in. While the proposed use of this
operation is somewhat less objectionable (although still objectionable to
me), nothing stops users from using OP_EQUALVERIFY and and causing their
transaction fluctuate between acceptable and unacceptable, with no party
doing anything like a double spend. This is a major problem with the
proposal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161002/bc7052b6/attachment.html>;
Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dw…8plrw
2023-06-07 17:53:42
in reply to nevent1q…nx8m
Author Public Key
npub1dw88wd5gqsqn6ufxhf9h03uk8087l7gfzdtez5csjlt6pupu4pwsj8plrwPublished at
2023-06-07 17:53:42Event JSON
{
"id": "822cf04d3f9a5b25949e34391a802b566ca2c3d1880205df76f37b0d7feff9e0",
"pubkey": "6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d",
"created_at": 1686160422,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a0719e105373a31b19331be2ab9915ba509ea0ec8469edd3808978e2d85d8297",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7b0c5640c967bb6842658e7618c9ef085094ffcc13eb5d4fdd07ce386a7d979e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-10-02\n📝 Original message:\u003e But I would argue that in this scenario, the only way it\n\u003e would become invalid is the equivalent of a double-spend... and therefore\n\u003e it\n\u003e may be acceptable in relation to this argument.\n\u003e\n\nThe values returned by OP_COUNT_ACKS vary in their exact value depending on\nwhich block this transaction ends up in. While the proposed use of this\noperation is somewhat less objectionable (although still objectionable to\nme), nothing stops users from using OP_EQUALVERIFY and and causing their\ntransaction fluctuate between acceptable and unacceptable, with no party\ndoing anything like a double spend. This is a major problem with the\nproposal.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161002/bc7052b6/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "689ef8035a308c2166d9d39dd256fe2ca7fc97c1a9a9e0d7d48fa8ac3388c53ff7e9ae3234b07b290da7a4378bf2ec69918b23aa7ed4434634373cc4334bcf16"
}