rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, <justusranvier at riseup.net> wrote: > If we have ECDSA proof that an entity intentionally made and publicly > announced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular > Bitcoins under their control, then why shouldn't that be assumed to be a > fraud attempt unless shown otherwise? > Making multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of various refund contract protocols. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/a49350a3/attachment.html>