Published on: 2015-04-21T11:37:14+00:00
In a 2015 email thread, Adrian Macneil from Coinbase expressed concern about the impact of the proposed Replace-by-Fee (RBF) protocol on Bitcoin. He discussed with Coinbase the potential difficulty in pitching Bitcoin as an alternative to credit card payments for large merchants due to their reliance on the current first-seen mempool behavior. Macneil raised questions about Coinbase's contractual obligations regarding zeroconf transactions, their double-spend losses history, and their plans to move away from dependency on "first-seen" mempool policy.Peter Todd challenged Adrian to provide a list of companies that actually rely on first-seen mempool behavior. Meanwhile, Mike Hearn shared two blog posts related to RBF and double spending mitigations. The first post argued against RBF-SE, highlighting its potential harm to Bitcoin. The second post explored techniques such as risk analysis, payment channels, countersigning by a trusted third party, remote attestation, ID verification, waiting for confirmations, and punishment of double spending blocks to make double spending more difficult.The email thread also included a promotional message about the Go Parallel Website, a platform sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media. This website focuses on parallel software development and offers various resources like thought leadership blogs, news, videos, case studies, tutorials, and more.On the Bitcoin-development mailing list, Mike Hearn wrote two blog posts discussing replace by fee and double-spending mitigations. The first article, titled "Replace by Fee Scorched Earth, a Counter Argument," presents arguments against RBF-SE, emphasizing its potential harm to Bitcoin. The second post, titled "Double Spending and How to Make It Harder," summarizes instances of double spending against merchants and suggests techniques to mitigate this risk. These techniques include risk analysis, payment channels, countersigning by a trusted third party, remote attestation, ID verification, waiting for confirmations, and punishment of double spending blocks. The posts are considered valuable and interesting to those interested in the topic.The author acknowledges that their views may not be exhaustive or unbiased but hopes that their thoughts will provide useful insights for readers interested in replace-by-fee and double-spending mitigations.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T12:11:41.865487+00:00