Quote from: phelix on May 19, 2013, 05:26:03 PM

Nodes could delay relaying of blocks including potential double spends (txs replacing txs the node knows about).

I would guess that major miners already are, or will, at some point, communicate directly among each other. After all, you don't want to miss a block.

It is not clear to me if one could not have a convention to under which miners might ignore certain blocks though.

Quote from: TalkingAntColony on May 19, 2013, 09:15:59 PM

I feel like this is a grey area with the proposal. You cannot simply assume there exists a feasible extension to scripting which would allow the network to verify that a double spend occurred.

I agree there is work need, but it is clear that there is a way of doing an extension which does what I want: simply introduce an opcode which does exactly what you want (i.e., don't even run the scripts; instead, check whether they have exactly the form required, and if so accept everything). Of course, this would be a bad way of doing it.

I think the main question here is: how can one make the scripting language flexible enough to allow this kind of mechanism?

Quote from: TalkingAntColony on May 19, 2013, 09:15:59 PM

Also, what happens when the payer double-spends to another merchant using this proposal's mechanism? Who's Tx3 would be valid?

Whichever is mined. Note that the miner will probably take the one giving him more fee.

tholenst

Posts

Merits