Author: Justus Ranvier 2015-02-12 18:11:48
Published on: 2015-02-12T18:11:48+00:00
The discussion in this context is about the safety of zero-confirmation transactions (0-confirms) and the proposal to replace-by-fee. The point of replace-by-fee is to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable, as double spend attacks are happening more frequently than being admitted. However, proposed solutions for a safer instant payment solution would either reduce privacy, security, or both. As a social artifact, currently, 0-confirms work for some people in some situations, but it's not a good idea to generally accept them. Instead, time should be spent on better alternative solutions that will work for everyone rather than supporting and promoting risky 0-confirms. There are already interesting solutions and concepts such as greenaddress and CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY micropayment channels. The discussion boils down to whether they should make the development of a safer instant payment solution happen sooner by breaking remnants of the 0-confirms system sooner. Some people are against the patch and believe it is better to build a decentralized clearing network rather than wasting time on debates. Additionally, the degree to which child-pays-for-parent achieves the stated aims of the original proposal without introducing incentives to double spend or forcing people into privacy/security sacrifices is not mentioned. Oleg Andreev suggests that he would rather not break anything but work as fast as possible on a better solution, implying that he also doesn't want to waste time debating with Peter Todd and others. He wants to be ready with a working tool when 0-confirms completely fails. Those who are against the patch are better off building a decentralized clearing network rather than wasting time on debates. When they have such a network, they might all want the patch to be used for all the reasons Peter has already outlined.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:48:25.967975+00:00