[Bitcoin-development] Double spending and replace by fee

Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org
Sat Mar 28 14:22:27 UTC 2015

Hash: SHA256

Would you so us all a favor and make a list of companies *actually* relying on "first-seen" mempool behaviour. Because I've been having a hard time actually finding anyone who does who hasn't given up on it. Not very useful to talk about attacks against hypothetical defences.

On 28 March 2015 09:58:53 GMT-04:00, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>I've written a couple of blog posts on replace by fee and double
>mitigations. They sum up the last few years (!) worth of discussions on
>this list and elsewhere, from my own perspective.
>I make no claim to be comprehensive or unbiased but I keep being asked
>about these topics so figured I'd just write up my thoughts once so I
>send links instead of answers :) And then so can anyone who happens to
>(1) Replace by fee scorched earth, a counter argument:
>This article lays out the case against RBF-SE and argues it is harmful
>(2) Double spending and how to make it harder:
>This article summarises a couple of double spending incidents against
>merchants and then discusses the following techniques:
>   1. Risk analysis of transactions
>   2. Payment channels
>   3. Countersigning by a trusted third party
>   4. Remote attestation
>   5. ID verification
>   6. Waiting for confirmations
>   7. Punishment of double spending blocks
>I hope the material is useful / interesting.
>Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
>by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub
>for all
>things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership
>blogs to
>news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join
>conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net


More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list