Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Uebp1-0007BO-1W for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:57:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Uebp0-0007pt-Cd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:57:03 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id b11so223932iee.37 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:56:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.65.75 with SMTP id k11mr121815ici.26.1369101417093; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.39.109 with HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:56:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <519AC3A8.1020306@quinnharris.me> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 03:56:57 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Robert Backhaus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Uebp0-0007pt-Cd Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double Spend Notification X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:57:03 -0000 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus wrote: > So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so no > one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a larger > fee, it will be considered to be the valid one, and the first one dropped, > as long as the first one has not been confirmed. This makes undoing a > mistaken transaction possible. This has been suggested, but I know of no such decision having been made. -- Pieter