🏷️ Categories: bitcoin-dev
quoting naddr1qq…aqdr📝 Summary: The author argues that implementing a first seen safe rule would avoid negative impacts on merchants and users who accept unconfirmed transactions. However, the validity of this claim is questioned as no evidence of actual merchants accepting unconfirmed payments is found. Daniel Lipshitz disputes this conclusion, providing evidence of Coinspaid’s use of 0-conf and offering to connect with the CEO for confirmation. He also mentions Changelly’s confirmation of GAP600 as a service provider. The request for concrete examples of merchants relying on unconfirmed transactions remains unanswered. Lipshitz disputes the recipient’s assessment of their dishonesty, providing evidence to support their claims and challenging the recipient to provide concrete examples. GAP600’s research is based on monitoring transactions and network activity, not specific hashing pools or client engagement. Coinpaid’s root addresses can be validated using tools like Chainanlysis, and Max at Coinpaid can confirm GAP600’s use. Changelly may not have implemented GAP600’s service across all its offerings.
👥 Authors: • Daniel Lipshitz ( Daniel Lipshitz [ARCHIVE] (npub1t97…g2yy) ) • Peter Todd ( Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] (npub1m23…2np2) )
đź“… Messages Date Range: 2023-08-01 to 2023-08-02
✉️ Message Count: 5
đź“š Total Characters in Messages: 21371
Messages Summaries
✉️ Message by Peter Todd on 01/08/2023: The author argues that implementing a first seen safe rule would avoid negative impacts on merchants and users who accept unconfirmed transactions. However, the author questions the validity of the claim, as they could not find any evidence of actual merchants accepting unconfirmed payments.
✉️ Message by Daniel Lipshitz on 01/08/2023: The author claims that the research is not thorough and reaches an incorrect conclusion. They provide evidence of Coinspaid’s use of 0-conf and offer to connect with the CEO for confirmation. They also mention speaking to Changelly for confirmation of GAP600 as a service provider. The author questions the need for full RBF and requests contacts of mining pools that have adopted it.
✉️ Message by Peter Todd on 02/08/2023: Daniel Lipshitz argues that the research is flawed and reaches an incorrect conclusion. He provides evidence of Coinspaid’s use of 0-conf and offers to connect with Max, the CEO, for confirmation. He also mentions Changelly’s offer to confirm GAP600 as a service provider. However, the request for concrete examples of merchants relying on unconfirmed transactions remains unanswered.
✉️ Message by Daniel Lipshitz on 02/08/2023: The sender disputes the recipient’s assessment of their dishonesty, stating that it is based on baseless assumptions and lacks commercial experience. They provide evidence to support their claims and challenge the recipient to provide concrete examples.
✉️ Message by Daniel Lipshitz on 02/08/2023: GAP600’s research is based on monitoring transactions and network activity. They do not assess specific hashing pools or engage with clients for their names and applications. Coinpaid’s root addresses can be validated using tools like Chainanlysis. It is possible to reach out to Max at Coinpaid to confirm GAP600’s use. Changelly may not have implemented GAP600’s service across all its offerings.
Follow Bitcoin Mailing List (npub15g7…08lk) for full threads
⚠️ Heads up! We've now started linking to replaceable long-form events (NIP-23), which allow for dynamic display of thread details like summaries, authors, and more. If you're unable to see this, your client may not support this feature yet.