pull down to refresh
related posts
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @dtonon 3 Jan 2023
Creative!
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @chungkingexpress 3 Jan 2023
I do not understand this. ELI5 please? Is RBF stuff an issue?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiudeEl 6 Jan 2023 freebie
RBF is not a issue, is the natural policy for the mempool and as bitcoin always was intend to work. But full-RBF decreases the barrier for double spending 0-conf tx. This protocol allows for the two parties in a transction interact creating a nuclear transaction that uses 2x the price of the good being purchased as fees. This transaction is supposed not to be used, only if someone tries to double spend the first transaction. So this nuclear transaction is a threat of mutual assured destruction which avoids the two parties cheating at each other.
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 6 Jan 2023
Pretty cool, but I see a glaring flaw. Lets so you do this entire mess and then Binance "consolidates" their UTXOs increasing the mempool size above 300mb causing this MAD tx to drop from the mempool?
Edit: I see where it was brought up as a problem, but it doesn't answer the question properly in my mind. It still seems to have glaring issues with it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiudeEl 6 Jan 2023 freebie
Good point. It could be a problem, although protocol allows for signing different transactions with increasing higher fees. Also is important to compare with lightning wich is the alternative for instant transactions. The penalty transaction will suffer the same problem of congested mempool. Wich protocol is better comes to personal risk choices.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satcat 3 Jan 2023
Seems kinda pointless...maybe that's the point?
reply