Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26 📝 Original message:On Tuesday, 26 May 2015, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26
📝 Original message:On Tuesday, 26 May 2015, at 11:22 am, Danny Thorpe wrote:
> What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals?
>
> Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods
> broadcast a double spend of that transaction to pay Alice nothing? Your
> only cost is the higher network fee of the 2nd tx.
The "First-Seen-Safe" replace-by-fee presently being discussed on this list disallows fraudulent payment reversals, as it disallows a replacing transaction that pays less to any output script than the replaced transaction paid.
Published at
2023-06-07 15:34:33Event JSON
{
"id": "e19d314251bc4295e53c498c0867251bfa54b9a0312278c8dbe92af8592c14a8",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686152073,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ee3374f0596590097a7f983055e4db51d747f93e39545b2c04710d1b11849a02",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7aba0d796963d30e9f22d5534c3a0bf28da13682ac5614606bc898bda7b1d430",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ee0fa66772f633411e4432e251cfb15b1c0fe8cd8befd8b0d86eb302402a8b4a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday, 26 May 2015, at 11:22 am, Danny Thorpe wrote:\n\u003e What prevents RBF from being used for fraudulent payment reversals?\n\u003e \n\u003e Pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after you receive the goods\n\u003e broadcast a double spend of that transaction to pay Alice nothing? Your\n\u003e only cost is the higher network fee of the 2nd tx.\n\nThe \"First-Seen-Safe\" replace-by-fee presently being discussed on this list disallows fraudulent payment reversals, as it disallows a replacing transaction that pays less to any output script than the replaced transaction paid.",
"sig": "2b1b76671893e14c38a05cd40cf1a66adc09799c5f3bc7cf6d362395e861ddf295bec4ad15e701bb7cb22cdd5f70f05ec41a71a8823a58eb5451950687ee5073"
}