Author: Peter Todd 2023-08-03 12:46:40+00:00
Published on: 2023-08-03T12:46:40+00:00
The claim that "trxs activity" is meaningless without demonstrating reliance on unconfirmed transaction acceptance is being challenged. The commenter questions the credibility of GAP600's offering of a "real-time risk engine" and "instant deposits & payments" without testing full-replace-by-fee (full-rbf) adoption themselves. They point out that their OpenTimestamps calendars have been creating full-rbf double spends multiple times a day for over a year, generating ample test data. The commenter suggests that if GAP600 truly has a "real-time risk engine" monitoring mempools, they would already be aware of these successful full-rbf replacements. They provide specific examples of transactions that were part of chains of replacements and question how these transactions are getting mined. The commenter draws parallels between GAP600's claims and Craig Wright's alleged fraudulent claims of ownership of bitcoin addresses. They argue that simply creating a list of addresses from blockchain data is not proof that any actual merchant relies on unconfirmed transactions. To prove the validity of their service, the commenter requests the names of merchants using GAP600's claimed service to verify their reliance on unconfirmed transactions. They also mention reaching out to changelly.com for confirmation of their use of GAP600 but have yet to receive a response. Overall, the commenter challenges the legitimacy and value of GAP600's claims and calls for concrete evidence of real merchants using their service.
Updated on: 2023-08-07T17:34:29.175250+00:00