Author: Tom Harding 2015-05-26 23:00:01
Published on: 2015-05-26T23:00:01+00:00
In a discussion between Gregory Maxwell and Tom Harding, the potential consequences of not contributing to a bitcoin transaction were explored. According to Maxwell, new inputs combined with new or increased outputs can be thought of as a second deal sharing the same envelope. In certain cases, if paying parties are kicked out of the deal, the entire transaction may be compromised, leading to real-world consequences. For example, in an Armory simulfunding transaction, one payer's input could be replaced after it was broadcasted, which could be problematic if the receiver cares where they are paid from or is basing a subsequent decision on it. The proposed Proof of Payment standard by Kalle makes it possible for one payer in a two-input transaction to boot the other and claim everything for themselves. However, this doesn't always work as expected in the real world, especially when there are limited tickets available for a concert. Mempool policy shouldn't help one payer make a unilateral decision to become the sole party to a deal after various parties have seen it broadcast.Maxwell also argues that changing how an input is signed does not change the deal. If different multisig participants sign, those three people already gave up that level of control when they created the multisig. However, replacement is a new concept that requires stronger warnings than what is already needed for 0-conf.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T21:25:15.192585+00:00