[Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)
pete at petertodd.org
Sun Feb 22 15:41:22 UTC 2015
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:18:05PM +0000, joliver at airmail.cc wrote:
> > Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective
> > tools
> > to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their
> > effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few
> > people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore.
> You mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while
> working for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to
> sell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this.
You lot spend so much time trying to claim I'm working for people I'm
not that I have a bad feeling I'm going to end up having to explain what
an internet troll is to "friendly" Revenue Canada tax auditor...
> I and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out
> that they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success
That tool was intentionally shipped with unclear instructions and nearly
all the double-spend strategies turned off by default; you can easily
increase that number with a little understanding.
> > As for the
> > remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my
> > consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person
> > trading for instance.
> A "team"
> You mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized
> LocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions.
"[Bitcoin-development] Eliminating double-spends with two-party
self-escrow for high value transactions",
Peter Todd, Apt 26th 2014,
(note that the above should be updated to use CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the bitcoin-dev