Bitcoin Dev

12 October 2023 05:32

What thoughts guys? This a real concern?

Bitcoin Dev

28 September 2023 00:10

you picked a very weird hill to die on

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:41

ya. problem is people double spending by mistake, even if they don't want to, because of the bad wallet ux.

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:38

How many users and merchants think that when the transaction falls out of the mempool it reverts the transaction? too many

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:37

broken are your expectations

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:36

just rely on your shipping practices like currently

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:35

as i said, i helped one double spend

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:28

they can wait for conf before they shipped the product like they do now

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:27

Me too. Profit maximization fucks up most social interactions. Unfortunately enough, trust isn't always an option.

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:26

anyways - i'm off twitter for a reason - all good. we disagree

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:25

i helped mike in space double spend his tx

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:23

8 years relying on 0 conf - guess how many double spends.. 0 - none - never - 0conf merchants begging for double spends to test their systems - doesnt happen

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:21

so people dont rely on unreliable mechanisms and get rekt

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:20

Irrational behavior is unreliable. Mining nodes that maximize profit, even if they started as a small minority, can be expected to eventually outcompete those that don't. If Core don't do it, people would run a patch instead.

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:18

luckily bitcoin is bitcoin, and not money

Bitcoin Dev

12 October 2023 05:32

https://x.com/123456/status/1711601593399828530?s=20

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:47

My grandma trusts me more than 6 confirms.. we don't need any confs.. we just need our wallets to know about the 0 conf utxo tx forever, and spend it as needed for her, and never for me.

I only need confirmations when there's a hostage situation and a ransom. end of rant

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:40

no idea, wallet ux is a different topic

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:37

It's just laziness by wallet devs

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:36

Relying on " confirmed" is silly
Every single transaction is context specific..

Almost all wallets and all users are broken because of this broken concept of a confirmation needed

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:35

relying on that is just silly

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:33

A valid transaction is a valid transaction. There's no such thing as "binary confirmed" - it's only a finality curve - 1 block reorgs happen as often as 0conf double spends

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:28

btw merchants can still accept zero conf on full rbf by default

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:26

merchants have inherent protection, they dont send you the package if you double spend

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:25

just because you had nothing worth stealing, doesnt mean it wont happen

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:24

Yes. Post confirmation (or intricate surrogate of confirmation, as in LN).
If the unconfirmed sufficed in a reliable way, then why use a wasteful blockchain?

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:22

life can be inconvenient

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:20

yes, thats why it needs to be full rbf by default

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 23:19

double spend prevention for p2p e cash was the idea - i once read that

Bitcoin Dev

27 September 2023 22:47

regarding full-rbf.. gossiping double spend attacks by default in bitcoin core, instead of trying to scale, breaks bitcoin as money.. imho