On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > > IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the > > one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must > > go. > > > You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to > be relaxed. Broadcasting > double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever > reason, would simplify internal consensus logic .
Wait, what the heck do you mean by "only if it is actually replacing an earlier"? How does my replace-by-fee patch *not* do that? -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000012613986506ef6592952234a6a04946ef946ff0836405ad4
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored 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 the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
