MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:16:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAODYVYf764XafVsbnVnYgsYZtWwKu4Q3cwzL1B=GVWUFjZ5TWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
Precedence: list

--001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

That looks very interesting. But is effectively blocking old clients from
seeing transactions really safe? After all, such transactions are still
confirmed on the new chain. A person might try to send a similar
transaction several times, perhaps with increasing fees in an attempt to
get it to confirm and end up paying someone several times.

Maybe we could require the tx version number to be increased as well so
transactions sent from old clients would never confirm? Perhaps your code
already includes this idea, I need to look at it more closely.

--001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>That looks very interesting. But is effectively block=
ing old clients=20
from seeing transactions really safe? After all, such transactions are=20
still confirmed on the new chain. A person might try to send a similar=20
transaction several times, perhaps with increasing fees in an attempt to
 get it to confirm and end up paying someone several times.<br><br></div>Ma=
ybe we could require the tx version number to be increased as well so trans=
actions sent from old clients would never confirm? Perhaps your code alread=
y includes this idea, I need to look at it more closely.<br></div>

--001a11c075a206847d05281bab3e--