rich1.0npub1qf6k0f8p0h89d43l0vnx2xp5yrfgjyl8tg3hkg8jtyudrllgw2usdlfn9ahttps://nostr.ae/npub1qf6k0f8p0h89d43l0vnx2xp5yrfgjyl8tg3hkg8jtyudrllgw2usdlfn9anjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 17:50, Jeff Garzik wrote: > No. You cannot know which is the 'right' or wrong transaction. One tx > has > obvious nSequence adjustments, the other - the refund transaction - may > not. I'm still not seeing a case where a node could see conflicting transactions on the network as part of a micropayment channel, and not know it was observing the resolution of a channel rather than a likely retail double spend. If both transactions have been broadcast, then one of the conflicting members of the set will have nSequence adjustments. Maybe a clever griefer could try to make their retail double spend look like a micropayment channel, but it seems like they'd be missing the other identifiable markers of that protocol. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVhFhqAAoJECpf2nDq2eYjWtgP/2ir11TUfxoIIzK9t0groKY3 yMR32HP3caDLKdc5ML41jf0l0cp7a54sFPuRE+Am8rkg9ogcf6fho/hCwLnhhNb4 YYBqJ2pzqCU1uN8jwPYSwSw3AO+F+hPE8gcm7lKD297a1k9xpYayAFjChJowoyNT Wuq9YDkakQeSjV1aCiRHuXNxqnnbymf9xHEiB0buVnSgnyXrgZNCnefAo8DeXYqi FTSceakNwdkklddK5ObNNK9ZoLpjHhX6hZwRiXsOoG+WUzXhLQ+BsyIFzsCKxQk1 cXjTvLn+Ub9FasRCK5KXMBkkPa1U5JLs1nTn6eTbPyroTs10WLkXWjIpZHrkf7ZW 9RsxoKIRaJur8gbYd6BMvV5rgkfGdb6j24pVNxFF2t89SLo44H0NvqE6koNzgubG 4DyXZ+UlzxzwRVBNDeF4pdlKZGsz2ycvQPuNHRoaZY2IsieMBN/5HEqGNOmXsvKf tCg1SInO/FkE4njCxSW0R31s2KXCpgVCuq3qmoIKZobDdx7AC8GnpY1rdxUGpVoy USJwZ2IOgtNfl/rBtOpkp/BaUCmCYOiUj13/ycDrqWvnM4TmiDdzJNEZNfez5UQp Uvgvstoo88sewv9hGsuBWX0nC+ze/m43ZRReFhQDsypEaOw6pL2LSG9dD3tzulax TrbPXPlN55NarQ3nmPIW =Hj0x -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----