📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12
📝 Original message:>
> You can not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent,
> as it could be the world as observed by some.
>
Fraudulent in what sense?
If you mean the legal term, then you'd use the legal "beyond reasonable
doubt" test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes
later once? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500
times in a row? Probably not a fluke.
If you mean under a technical definition then I think Tom Harding has been
researching this topic, though I've only kept half an eye on it. I guess
it's some statistical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure
good incentives with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the
block chain algorithm already works w.r.t orphans.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/4a915041/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:30:12
in reply to nevent1q…2hps
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:30:12Event JSON
{
"id": "199ee15024560230bd3daf6b881f9a6b19247b54d9d5f6e8d1ce6c07771fb11f",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686151812,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ba772dbf5c965827fc712af37e2abb78447348cb2e1023b6358796cc65e7b8fb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dc8e2da1953b61717f894507eab995b1f74b1d50dc8f476a920155cb1e8b71ec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e You can not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent,\n\u003e as it could be the world as observed by some.\n\u003e\n\nFraudulent in what sense?\n\nIf you mean the legal term, then you'd use the legal \"beyond reasonable\ndoubt\" test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes\nlater once? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500\ntimes in a row? Probably not a fluke.\n\nIf you mean under a technical definition then I think Tom Harding has been\nresearching this topic, though I've only kept half an eye on it. I guess\nit's some statistical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure\ngood incentives with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the\nblock chain algorithm already works w.r.t orphans.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/4a915041/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c43e7fa8e1b40c542b5309b1d6d3b9109bc8bfef41d6cc429a785721b79c8c733a42d386f9807aac2f0ac80c1ee3e4bce0861b0bc28c02c5fab5a42e72d40bd8"
}