📅 Original date posted:2014-10-28
📝 Original message:On Monday 27. October 2014 19.26.48 Tom Harding wrote:
> Miner has to be very careful including a double-spend in his block -- he
> hopes:
How does it help the zero-confirmation to not include a payment? Doesn't that
just mean that if I send a double spend that neither of the payments will be
made? So the thief just got an even bigger incentive to double-spent!
> - that based on his measured time offset from the first spend he
> received, at most a tiny fraction of the network will delay his block
>
> - that not too many nodes saw an earlier spend that he didn't see,
> which could increase that fraction
>
> - that most other nodes saw his tx. Any who didn't will only learn
> about it by receiving his block, and they will assign it the time when
> they receive the block. That's likely to be more than T (30 seconds)
> after an earlier spend, so they would delay the block.
This doesn't addresses the point that Matt brought up.
Your proposal essentially has some side effects that would be disastrous to
miners. As detailed by the other two replies on this thread.
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:26:59
in reply to nevent1q…qdm2
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:26:59Event JSON
{
"id": "ca6458ede7bc229cfbe5940f90d2081afe8f3e05be2c592b3dc4e92c76fdf88e",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686151619,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e74239e906de2305dfdbe18a7ea8d1ac2c0b35e66c965ed70a3538c1b7174f36",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7a168fd304858a7ebe514e7864752c13e07a15497232b907d5da9497339a27df",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-10-28\n📝 Original message:On Monday 27. October 2014 19.26.48 Tom Harding wrote:\n\u003e Miner has to be very careful including a double-spend in his block -- he \n\u003e hopes:\n\nHow does it help the zero-confirmation to not include a payment? Doesn't that \njust mean that if I send a double spend that neither of the payments will be \nmade? So the thief just got an even bigger incentive to double-spent!\n \n\n\u003e - that based on his measured time offset from the first spend he \n\u003e received, at most a tiny fraction of the network will delay his block\n\u003e\n\u003e - that not too many nodes saw an earlier spend that he didn't see, \n\u003e which could increase that fraction\n\u003e \n\u003e - that most other nodes saw his tx. Any who didn't will only learn \n\u003e about it by receiving his block, and they will assign it the time when \n\u003e they receive the block. That's likely to be more than T (30 seconds) \n\u003e after an earlier spend, so they would delay the block.\n\nThis doesn't addresses the point that Matt brought up.\nYour proposal essentially has some side effects that would be disastrous to \nminers. As detailed by the other two replies on this thread.",
"sig": "41507d63aa52dd8208fd5754066d9c4215b199e510a9202604f56245e9f8260eed417bc7104b515f55a42b722a3b045cac679ed786faee4d6ad6b19076ffc6c5"
}