{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, \u003cjustusranvier at riseup.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 2015-06-19 17:40, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Making multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of\n\u003e\u003e various refund contract protocols.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Is there not a dedicated field in a transaction (nSequence) for express\n\u003e purpose of indicating when a protocol like this is in use?\n\u003e\n\nNo.  You cannot know which is the 'right' or wrong transaction.  One tx has\nobvious nSequence adjustments, the other - the refund transaction - may not.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nBitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/260466f9/attachment.html\u003e"}