Vague, ambiguous words like "reasonable" have no place in a formal definition. Also: "its.
So you're saying that the only problem with that requirement is a typo in the word "its" and you would prefer a better word that "reasonable". Got it. At least we agree on that point.
No. I'm telling you that not only is your definition junk ("reasonable" is junk, for the same reason "correct answer" is not a correct answer to a math problem -- it's unenlightening, it carries no information, it tells your teacher nothing), but you also cant's write right.
>but if you do spend them (or receive a transaction that spent them) then you should expect a significantly increased chance that the transaction WON'T confirm in the next block
So, exactly like spending a check that Anon claims he sent you, then.
You can write checks (backed by zilch) before you receive Anon's check, but, if anyone tries to cash those bouncy checks you wrote, they'll bounce. But yeah, strictly speaking, you are free to spend Anon's check as soon as he tells you it's in the mail. Just like those unconfirmed tx
>Techy? Maybe Techie.
Nah, I'm good.
