{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1qf6k0f8p0h89d43l0vnx2xp5yrfgjyl8tg3hkg8jtyudrllgw2usdlfn9a","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1qf6k0f8p0h89d43l0vnx2xp5yrfgjyl8tg3hkg8jtyudrllgw2usdlfn9a","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\nOn 2015-06-19 17:40, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e Making multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of\n\u003e various refund contract protocols.\n\nIs there not a dedicated field in a transaction (nSequence) for express \npurpose of indicating when a protocol like this is in use?\n\nAs far as I know, transactions which are using those protocols can be \neasily differentiated from those that aren't (which is probably good \nfrom a payment assurance standpoint and bad from a privacy standpoint).\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2\n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\nJI17MYG0ofTLfdCfkgEG\n=en1q\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}