11–20 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There never was any credibility behind an unconfirmed transaction.
You can't pretend like zero-confirmation transactions have never been useful. They have been used in practice for small amounts, many times, with no issues, and this system obviously changes things.
Wild. So, if this takes off (ie, enjoys miner adoption) and if the incentive structure works as advertised (ie, miners stand to make more by accepting the invalidating transactions), then this pretty much destroys the credibility of 0-confirms except with trusted parties, yes?
There never was any credibility behind an unconfirmed transaction.
Wild. So, if this takes off (ie, enjoys miner adoption) and if the incentive structure works as advertised (ie, miners stand to make more by accepting the invalidating transactions), then this pretty much destroys the credibility of 0-confirms except with trusted parties, yes?
There never was any credibility behind an unconfirmed transaction.
So, in practice, what is the probability that a transaction would really be cancelled if the issuer of the payment uses this service approximately two minutes after initiating the transaction? (I assume that two minutes are a realistic estimate of the time it takes to realise that one has made a mistake, remember this service, search for it online, and fill out the necessary info.)
The same idea can be used with a rogue client. Just generate a conflicting transaction.
I’m not sure, but if there are conflicting transactions, then most of the miners just pick the first transaction they received. But let’s be optimistic and suppose that they pick at random, so you have a 80%/2=40% that the new conflicting transaction is picked and the original dropped.
IIRC some miners are filtering the transactions to process the transactions with bigger fees, even in the case of not conflicting transactions. So perhaps a bigger fee can be used as an incentive to choose the “right” transaction.
I wonder if it's a scam or it got reported and deleted out of fear of causing a stir or similar.
This link was also posted to reddit.com/r/bitcoin about an hour ago and was making its way up the front page. Now ... gone. I wonder if it's a scam or it got reported and deleted out of fear of causing a stir or similar.
What they seem to not realize, is that double spend attacks were very viable previously (putting conflicting transactions in different part of the network), submitting double-spends directly to pools, finley attack etc.
The thing bitundo brings to the table is legitimacy. People can undo a transaction without foreknowledge they will need to. This is nothing but a good thing for the bitcoin network, and it reminds people that 0-confirmation transaction never were, and never will be safe.
Edit: it's back!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There never was any credibility behind an unconfirmed transaction.
You can't pretend like zero-confirmation transactions have never been useful. They have been used in practice for small amounts, many times, with no issues, and this system obviously changes things.
Interesting product. It doesn't really look like this is meant to make any money for the developer yet (maybe the plan is to add fees to their mining pool at some point in the future?). I suspect the point is to drive policy so that companies and individuals don't trust transactions with zero confirmations, or at least start checking for double-spend attempts. The standard right now for many companies is to accept ze…
Incorrect.
> the new fee you will need to pay is 10% of the undo amount, plus the original mining fee. Note: If you are sending a secret transaction, you must then double this fee