Author: Alan Reiner 2015-02-12 19:15:01
Published on: 2015-02-12T19:15:01+00:00
In a Bitcoin-development mailing list, Allen Piscitello expresses his belief that replace-by-fee is good in the long-term and that Peter Todd is not breaking the zero-conf because it was already broken. He argues that building systems that depend on an opponent using the same values/motivations/rationality as yourself can lead to false sense of security and eventually cause harm. Piscitello acknowledges that the Bitcoin network achieves a trustless, decentralized ledger but it takes time for the network to reach consensus on transactions. He advocates for efforts to dispel myths and encourages building robust solutions such as payment channels and insured zero-conf services. The discussion regarding replace-by-fee focuses on whether to hasten the development of safer instant payments or maintain remnants of the current system. Justus Ranvier suggests focusing on building a decentralized clearing network rather than debating and waiting for zeroconf to fail. This debate overlooks the fact that proposed solutions for safer instant payments can reduce privacy and security. There is also no mention of child-pays-for-parent's ability to achieve the stated aims of the original proposal without introducing incentives to double spend or forcing people into privacy/security sacrifices.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:59:04.615904+00:00