{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 07:30:17AM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote:\n\u003e \u003e In that case would you enter into such contracts?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e We take it as it comes.\n\u003e \n\u003e Currently, it's perfectly possible to accept zeroconf transactions with\n\u003e only a very small chance of double spend. As long as it's only possible to\n\u003e double spend a small fraction of the time, it's an acceptable cost to us in\n\u003e exchange for being able to provide a fast checkout experience to customers\n\u003e and merchants.\n\nUnless you're sybil attacking the network and miners, consuming valuable\nresources and creating systemic risks of failure like we saw with\nChainalysis, I don't see how you're getting \"very small\" double-spend\nprobabilities.\n\nYou realise how the fact that F2Pool is using full-RBF right now does\nstrongly suggest that the chances of a double-spend are not only low,\nbut more importantly, vary greatly? Any small change in relaying policy\nor even network conditions creates opportunities to double-spend.\n\n\u003e If the status quo changes, then we will need to investigate alternatives\n\u003e (which realistically would include mining contracts, or only accepting\n\u003e instant payments from other trusted hosted wallets, which would be a net\n\u003e loss for decentralization).\n\nYou know, you're creating an interesting bit of game theory here: if I'm\na miner who doesn't already have a mining contract, why not implement\nfull-RBF to force Coinbase to offer me one? One reason might be because\nother miners with such a contract - a majority - are going to be asked\nby Coinbase to reorg you out of the blockchain, but then we have a\nsituation where a single entity has control of the blockchain.\n\nFor the good of Bitcoin, and your own company, you'd do well to firmly\nstate that under no condition will Coinbase ever enter into mining\ncontracts.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000fe727215265d9ddacb2930ad2d45920b71920b7aed687f1\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/8c3576b9/attachment.sig\u003e"}