<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19&#xA;📝 Original message:On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:&#xA;&gt; If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will actively&#xA;&gt; harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or POS&#xA;&gt; merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.&#xA;&#xA;Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The reason we don&#39;t yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible &#34;enough,&#34; but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it should not be relied upon.</html></oembed>