On 6/16/2014 8:09 AM, Daniel Rice wrote: > What if we solved doublespends like this: If a node receives 2 > transactions that use the same input, they can put both of them into > the new block as a proof of double spend, but the bitcoins are not > sent to the outputs of either transactions. They are instead treated > like a fee and given to the block solver node. This gives miners the > needed incentive and tools to end doublespends instead of being forced > to favor one transaction over the other.
Before considering a hard fork with unpredictable effects on the uncertainty window, it would be interesting to look at a soft fork that would directly target the goal of reducing the uncertainty window, like treating locally-detected double-spends aged > T as invalid (see earlier message "A statistical consensus rule for reducing 0-conf double-spend risk"). If anything is worth a soft fork, wouldn't reducing the double-spend uncertainty window by an order of magnitude be in the running? Reducing the reasons that transactions don't get relayed, which actually seems to have a shot of happening pretty soon, would also make this kind of thing work better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
