Most SPV wallets make it quite clear that unconfirmed transactions are just that.
On 06/19/2017 06:36 PM, adiabat via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This has been brought up several times in the past, and I agree with > Jonas' comments about users being unaware of the privacy losses due to > BIP37. One thing also mentioned before but not int he current thread > is that the entire concept of SPV is not applicable to unconfirmed > transactions. SPV uses the fact that miners have committed to a > transaction with work to give the user an assurance that the > transaction is valid; if the transaction were invalid, it would be > costly for the miner to include it in a block with valid work. > > Transactions in the mempool have no such assurance, and are costlessly > forgeable by anyone, including your ISP. I wasn't involved in any > debate over BIP37 when it was being written up, so I don't know how > mempool filtering got in, but it never made any sense to me. The fact > that lots of lite clients are using this is a problem as it gives > false assurance to users that there is a valid but yet-to-be-confirmed > transaction sending them money. > > -Tadge > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev