Author: Peter Todd 2022-02-19 09:39:22
Published on: 2022-02-19T09:39:22+00:00
In an email exchange, Jeremy Rubin and Peter Todd argue over the definition of a "pinning attack" as it relates to blockchain transactions. Rubin suggests a new term, "necromancing," for attacks that involve getting an out-of-date version of a transaction mined. Todd explains that OpenTimestamps calendars use Replace-by-Fee (RBF) to update timestamp transactions with a new merkle tip hash once per new block. He notes that older versions getting mined wastes money and delays settlement in the exact same way it does in OTS. Todd also argues that fee accounts or similar mechanisms should be opt-in, and he refutes Rubin's claim that getting necromanced on an earlier RBF'd transaction is beneficial. Finally, Todd checks BTC transaction accelerator services and finds them to be either scams or very expensive.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T03:50:24.552872+00:00