rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12 📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > > IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the > > one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must > > go. > > > You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting > double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic . Wait, what the heck do you mean by "only if it is actually replacing an earlier"? How does my replace-by-fee patch *not* do that? -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000012613986506ef6592952234a6a04946ef946ff0836405ad4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 650 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/3a7c7dc8/attachment.sig>