š
Original date posted:2012-04-13
š Original message:On 2012 April 12 Thursday, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> One of my From-Day-One complaints about bitcoin is that transactions
> behavior could be far more deterministic (predictable), from a user
> standpoint. Transactions in the current system can easily remain in
> limbo forever.
>
> One big step in making transactions behave more predictably would be
> to remove transactions from the memory pool, if they have not made it
> into a block for a couple days. i.e.
A change I've wished for for a while (but I suspect it is too big a change to
ever make it) is that a transaction announcement include the block the user
wants to base on. It would only be in the protocol message, not the
transaction stored in the blockchain.
The advantage is that (1) it protects against double spends without needing a
confirmation period; as a merchant I can instantly spend a 1-confirmation
transaction by creating my transaction with that 1-confirm as its "base". (2)
your expiry from memory pool becomes easy -- if the "base" is more than N
blocks below the current head, then that transaction won't be included.
Retransmission is possible with the base updated.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120413/d9e35fe5/attachment.sig>;
Andy Parkins [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nxā¦7wjrv
2023-06-07 10:04:07
in reply to nevent1qā¦u0zz
Author Public Key
npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrvSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 10:04:07Event JSON
{
"id": "468e604262c8c445c5297e480b053a8b4299dd2334b60c23ac6d979f59df13e9",
"pubkey": "99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59",
"created_at": 1686132247,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f0cc6578a9ca4b7b0857c070ede1826db3227f161e70524c04566da5c5a56a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f6d4d0a4fcb61cb037dfacea90cc95eb8189fca113886f338c1e90fecfab949e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2012-04-13\nš Original message:On 2012 April 12 Thursday, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n \n\u003e One of my From-Day-One complaints about bitcoin is that transactions\n\u003e behavior could be far more deterministic (predictable), from a user\n\u003e standpoint. Transactions in the current system can easily remain in\n\u003e limbo forever.\n\u003e \n\u003e One big step in making transactions behave more predictably would be\n\u003e to remove transactions from the memory pool, if they have not made it\n\u003e into a block for a couple days. i.e.\n\nA change I've wished for for a while (but I suspect it is too big a change to \never make it) is that a transaction announcement include the block the user \nwants to base on. It would only be in the protocol message, not the \ntransaction stored in the blockchain.\n\nThe advantage is that (1) it protects against double spends without needing a \nconfirmation period; as a merchant I can instantly spend a 1-confirmation \ntransaction by creating my transaction with that 1-confirm as its \"base\". (2) \nyour expiry from memory pool becomes easy -- if the \"base\" is more than N \nblocks below the current head, then that transaction won't be included.\n\nRetransmission is possible with the base updated.\n\n\n\nAndy\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins\nandyparkins at gmail.com\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 198 bytes\nDesc: This is a digitally signed message part.\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120413/d9e35fe5/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "320962079be4a46db1c563dc1d4ccc91efd4523831b65c457710f15c808b549b0a0ef57a48108f244cd2dc8bcc30b6ad2ef0fe95999e39bdd8bee2ad61a8121f"
}