{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12\n📝 Original message:On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e You can not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent, as it could be the world as observed by some.\n\u003e \n\u003e Fraudulent in what sense?\n\nAssume a wallet that sends double spend of the coin spent for services with higher fees to some of its nodes simultaneously.\nMerchants will catch and reject most of the attempts, but that will not stop the scheme in a setup where customer are anonymous and distant.\n\nMiner will see a mixed picture and will struggle to act “honestly” on a statistical measure.\n\nTamas Blummer\n\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/08996a64/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 496 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/08996a64/attachment.sig\u003e"}