Author: James MacWhyte 2017-01-06 21:35:58
Published on: 2017-01-06T21:35:58+00:00
The purpose of the bitcoin protocol development is to build base functionality for companies and individuals to provide usability to the end-user. The 0-conf debate has become a UX issue. Wallet developers should hide or mark 0-conf transactions appropriately, instead of debating on what they should or shouldn't do. The list will provide tools and let the market sort it out. If wallet developers start receiving complaints on confusion and loss caused by 0-conf transactions, they will find a solution. The tools required for their solution don't exist; they will request action from this list. Regarding the probability of the valid tx being mined in a block before it actually gets mined, it is useful when accepting payments in situations where you can't wait for full confirmation. No one is suggesting that all tx validation should be performed by querying miners mempools. Once a tx gets its first confirmation, determining validity goes back to the usual way. Even if running a full node, you can't know for sure that any given tx will make it into a future block. You can't determine whether the future miner who finally mines that tx will mine your TXID or another TXID that spends the same inputs to another address. To know for certain, query every single large hashpower mempool. When unable to run your own full-node as a merchant, use a wallet-service with centralized verification, maybe two of them, in watch-only mode. It is best to connect to the mempool of each miner and check to see if they have your txid in their mempool. This is an example of mining centralization increasing the security of zero confirm. But a world connected to a few web services for payment validity determination is an example of a bitcoin security catastrophe.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T05:00:18.921190+00:00