Author: Peter Todd 2015-06-19 14:59:41
Published on: 2015-06-19T14:59:41+00:00
In this email conversation, Adrian Macneil states that it is acceptable for them to take zeroconf transactions even though there is a small chance of double spend. However, Peter Todd argues that the probability of double spend is not "very small" unless the network is being attacked. Peter Todd also points out that F2Pool's use of full-RBF suggests that the chances of double spend are low but vary greatly, and any change in network conditions could create opportunities for double-spend. In response, Adrian implies that if the status quo changes, they may need to investigate alternatives such as mining contracts or only accepting instant payments from other trusted hosted wallets, which would be a net loss for decentralization. However, Peter warns that offering mining contracts could create a situation where a single entity has control of the blockchain, and urges Coinbase to firmly state that they will never enter into mining contracts for the good of Bitcoin and their own company.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T23:52:56.573340+00:00