Author: Tom Harding 2015-02-12 18:14:02
Published on: 2015-02-12T18:14:02+00:00
In an email conversation on February 11, 2015, Peter Todd expressed his concerns about the implications of replace-by-fee. He stated that the feature creates the power to repudiate an entire tree of payments and hands this power individually to the owner of each input to the top transaction. Todd speculated that this is why the original replacement code required that all of the same inputs be spent even if the original outputs got jilted.Todd also warned that replace-by-fee strengthens the existing incentive discontinuity at 1-conf and shouts it from the rooftops. He predicted that there would be more Finney attacks, including paid ones, if replace-by-fee becomes common. Despite how reliable 0-conf can ever be (much more reliable than today in Todd's opinion), he argued that discontinuities are very undesirable.Todd concluded by stating that there is no money in mining other people's double-spends. Miners of all sizes would welcome a fair way to reduce them to improve the quality of the currency, whether or not that way is DSDW. He clarified that DSDW isn't trust- or vote-based but rather based on statistics, which is bitcoin-esque to the core.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:57:17.518101+00:00