<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-06-20&#xA;📝 Original message:On Saturday, June 20, 2015 1:23:03 AM Aaron Voisine wrote:&#xA;&gt; They don&#39;t need to be made cryptographically safe, they just have to be&#xA;&gt; safer than, for instance, credit card payments that can be charged back. As&#xA;&gt; long as it&#39;s reasonably good in practice, that&#39;s fine.&#xA;&#xA;They never will be. You can get a decent rate of success merely by making one &#xA;transaction propagate fast (eg, 1 input, 1 output) and the other slow (eg, &#xA;1000 inputs, 1000 outputs) and choosing your peers carefully. The only reason &#xA;unconfirmed transactions aren&#39;t double spent today is because nobody is &#xA;seriously *trying*.&#xA;&#xA;Luke</html></oembed>