Author: Jeremy Rubin 2022-02-20 16:29:00
Published on: 2022-02-20T16:29:00+00:00
In a conversation between Peter Todd and Jeremy Rubin, the discussion centered around pinning attacks as it pertains to blockchain transactions. While Todd argued that transactions have nothing to do with computation, Rubin countered that they are in fact computations, citing relevant literature on non-blocking algorithms. They also noted that transactions represent dynamic computations, despite being blobs of verification. The conversation then shifted to OpenTimestamps (OTS) calendars and the use of Replace-By-Fee (RBF) to update timestamp transactions. Rubin suggested that there could be a single output chain that is RBF'ed one step per block and that sponsoring an old version only causes a delay of one block in the calendar commit. Todd disagreed, stating that older versions getting mined wastes money and delays settlement for the same reasons it does in OTS. Lastly, Rubin argued that getting "necromanced" on an earlier RBF'd transaction by a third party for OTS can save fees since the N+1st transaction will be paying a higher fee than the Nth.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T03:56:26.236438+00:00