Author: Tier Nolan 2015-06-19 17:00:55
Published on: 2015-06-19T17:00:55+00:00
In an email exchange between Eric Lombrozo and other participants on June 19, 2015, the topic of non-repudiation mechanisms in the protocol was discussed. Lombrozo suggested that a mechanism should be explicitly defined rather than relying on assumptions. If there is no such mechanism, he recommended not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay. The discussion then moved to marking outputs as "locked" for zero confirmation spends, which would require the recipient to flag the output as non-reducible. However, this could reduce privacy since it would be apparent which output was change. If both outputs are locked, the fee cannot be increased, but miners could ignore this information. The group acknowledged that creating the right incentives is difficult, but blocks could be "discouraged" if there is a known double spend for a while, which reduces payment for a locked output.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T23:44:33.256390+00:00