📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:
> If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will actively
> harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or POS
> merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.
Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The reason we don't yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible "enough," but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it should not be relied upon.
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:38:58
in reply to nevent1q…nyhl
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:38:58Event JSON
{
"id": "0ec1c5397a56f68bcc3c4252233f2019b31fb135dde82a2f117b288f8a1751a0",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686152338,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b4025f674cbd304cabd44490b09b3ceb927f752f6a9f4513b25fefc95bdc008",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6c173da3a70122ffccd529342ef3fc347abcc2f4733e411972edbaea3ad980e3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:\n\u003e If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will actively\n\u003e harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or POS\n\u003e merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.\n\nRetail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The reason we don't yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible \"enough,\" but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it should not be relied upon.",
"sig": "93a9139be7c6e97e118c23ae3f2dbdfdb0dea99418a2d4ae151fae5d08850d40384d33d2098ce52ac438f2366974d711401ea9e19e4c76c5adc0caf38eba7bbe"
}