Author: Eric Lombrozo 2015-02-22 23:29:36
Published on: 2015-02-22T23:29:36+00:00
On February 22, 2015, Eric Lombrozo wrote about the possibility of some outputs being kept in a transaction while others are replaced. He proposed treating these instances as output replacement and punishing the sender unless they make it clear that it's only a fee replacement by creating a new transaction that produces an output with the desired extra fee. Peter Todd responded to this proposal stating that it is generally impossible to know which transaction is the original when outputs are added or removed. Todd proposed allowing any transaction output to be replaced with one with an equal or greater nValue and same scriptPubKey, as well as additional txouts added. However, Lombrozo argued that this approach would complicate use cases and restrict users from doing useful things, such as collapsing multiple payments into one to reduce the size of transactions. Despite the insecurity of unconfirmed transactions, Todd believed that there are instances where 0-conf transactions make sense, such as paying for utilities, ISP, web hosting, or other services that could be immediately shut off upon detection of a double-spend. The conversation ended with Todd signing his message with a PGP signature.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:52:06.460315+00:00