<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub18plyg5mfmzwlvkcx0fhudfll3x5phjvvlglw4dgj6t5ehyp87ttqzv2ml4</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub18plyg5mfmzwlvkcx0fhudfll3x5phjvvlglw4dgj6t5ehyp87ttqzv2ml4</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;&#xA;&gt; &gt; We have no contracts in place or plans to do this that I am aware of.&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xA;&gt; &gt; However, we do rely pretty heavily on zeroconf transactions for merchant&#xA;&gt; &gt; processing, so if any significant portion of the mining pools started&#xA;&gt; &gt; running your unsafe RBF patch, then we would probably need to look into&#xA;&gt; &gt; this as a way to prevent fraud.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; What happens if the mining pools who are mining double-spends aren&#39;t&#xA;&gt; doing it delibrately? Sybil attacking pools appears to have been done&#xA;&gt; before to get double-spends though, equally there are many other changes&#xA;&gt; the reduce the reliability of transaction confirmations. For instance&#xA;&gt; the higher demands on bandwidth of a higher blocksize will inevitably&#xA;&gt; reduce the syncronicity of mempools, resulting in double-spend&#xA;&gt; opportunities. Similarly many proposals to limit mempool size allow&#xA;&gt; zeroconf double-spends.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; In that case would you enter into such contracts?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;We take it as it comes.&#xA;&#xA;Currently, it&#39;s perfectly possible to accept zeroconf transactions with&#xA;only a very small chance of double spend. As long as it&#39;s only possible to&#xA;double spend a small fraction of the time, it&#39;s an acceptable cost to us in&#xA;exchange for being able to provide a fast checkout experience to customers&#xA;and merchants.&#xA;&#xA;If the status quo changes, then we will need to investigate alternatives&#xA;(which realistically would include mining contracts, or only accepting&#xA;instant payments from other trusted hosted wallets, which would be a net&#xA;loss for decentralization).&#xA;&#xA;Long term we would prefer to see an open, decentralized solution, such as&#xA;payment channels / green addresses / lightening networks. However, I think&#xA;as a community we are a long way away from choosing a standard here and&#xA;implementing it across all popular wallet software and merchant processors.&#xA;&#xA;Adrian&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/e0ee9118/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>