{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e You can not consider the outcome resulting by replace-by-fee fraudulent,\n\u003e as it could be the world as observed by some.\n\u003e\n\nFraudulent in what sense?\n\nIf you mean the legal term, then you'd use the legal \"beyond reasonable\ndoubt\" test. You mined a double spend that ~everyone thinks came 5 minutes\nlater once? OK, that could be a fluke. Reasonable doubt. You do it 500\ntimes in a row? Probably not a fluke.\n\nIf you mean under a technical definition then I think Tom Harding has been\nresearching this topic, though I've only kept half an eye on it. I guess\nit's some statistical approximation of the above, i.e. sufficient to ensure\ngood incentives with only small false positive losses. Sort of like how the\nblock chain algorithm already works w.r.t orphans.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/4a915041/attachment.html\u003e"}