Author: Jorge Timón 2015-02-21 19:09:50
Published on: 2015-02-21T19:09:50+00:00
The writer of the email agrees that "scorched hearth" is a bad name for the 0 confirmation protocol based on game theory and suggests a better name would be "stag hunt". The writer thinks it would be interesting to integrate the protocol into the payment system. They also mention that replace-by-fee is purely part of a node's policy, not part of consensus and believes that non-standard policies should not be considered an attack on Bitcoin. The writer disagrees that replace-by-fee will be the end of Bitcoin or push the price of BTC miners are mining down but believes that it will be something good for Bitcoin. The email also discusses the issue of reversibility in payment systems and how most payment systems include some method to reverse or undo payments made in error. However, the longer settlement times in these systems give more time for a human to react to errors and system failures. The writer thinks that if we are going to trust the system, it must allow reversal through a human-in-the-loop. The email goes on to discuss the benefits of reversible mechanisms built on top of Bitcoin and how it is impossible to build a non-reversible layer on top of a reversible layer. The writer suggests extending the zero-conf double-spend transaction reversal in a way that senders and receivers have a choice to use it, or not. Overall, the email addresses various issues related to Bitcoin development and suggests improvements that could benefit the network.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:51:19.429624+00:00