{"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 17:50, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e No.  You cannot know which is the 'right' or wrong transaction.  One tx \n\u003e has\n\u003e obvious nSequence adjustments, the other - the refund transaction - may \n\u003e not.\n\nI'm still not seeing a case where a node could see conflicting \ntransactions on the network as part of a micropayment channel, and not \nknow it was observing the resolution of a channel rather than a likely \nretail double spend.\n\nIf both transactions have been broadcast, then one of the conflicting \nmembers of the set will have nSequence adjustments.\n\nMaybe a clever griefer could try to make their retail double spend look \nlike a micropayment channel, but it seems like they'd be missing the \nother identifiable markers of that protocol.\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2\n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\nTrbPXPlN55NarQ3nmPIW\n=Hj0x\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}