Author: Gregory Maxwell 2013-05-21 03:54:25
Published on: 2013-05-21T03:54:25+00:00
In May 2013, Pieter Wuille and Robert Backhaus discussed the idea of making zero-confirmation double spends trivial in Bitcoin. However, no decision was made regarding this matter. Wuille argued against it initially but later became neutral as he found persuasive arguments for and against pure fee-based replacement. He also noted that fees are not a significant motivator compared to subsidy and overall network health. Although there are risks associated with zero-confirmation transactions, such as underestimating the costs of unlikely risks, more deterministic behavior can result in safer interactions. Wuille stated that self-interest would eventually lead to pure-fee based replacement becoming widespread, which is why it is good to avoid building a dependency on behavior that will not last. Furthermore, child-pays-for-parent combined with replacement can create a new kind of double spend defense. If someone double-spends a payment to an online key, one can instantly produce a child transaction that pays 100% of the double-spend to fees. This allows the double spender to hurt the recipient but not profit from it. However, the race to burn more money can be odd and may not have long-term benefits. A short-term benefit can be significant in encouraging Bitcoin adoption. In any case, it is far from clear what should be done regarding this matter. Wuille noticed that some people seem to be swayed by replace by fee, and there may evolve a community consensus regardless of what developers think about it. Wuille's SO pointed out that the transaction burning race described above sounds like an economist's dream, as it is one of those cases they use in experiments to probe human behavior. It may be useful to point some graduate students at this question and see what they can come up with about it.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T17:00:23.492276+00:00