Message-ID: <53575F1A.2000504@monetize.io>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:35:06 -0700
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Organization: Monetize.io Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <20140422213128.GB2578@savin>
	<CABh=4qMk5RbM9pErQd9EsabWo8uP9u82yZOXk87AxdmAPq8H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABh=4qMk5RbM9pErQd9EsabWo8uP9u82yZOXk87AxdmAPq8H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double-spending unconfirmed transactions
 is a lot easier than most people realise
Precedence: list


On 04/22/2014 09:29 PM, Jan Møller wrote:
>>Of course, this is an especially difficult case, as you must send the
>>double-spend after the original transaction - normally just sending a
>>non-standard tx to Eligius first would suffice. Note how this defeats
>>Andresen's double-spend-relay patch(3) as proposed since the
>>double-spend is a non-standard transaction.
> 
> Why can't you send a non-standard tx to Eligius first in this scenario?​
> Is it because LuckyBit is connected directly to Eligius, and does
> Eligius relay (not only mine) non-standard transactions?
> 

Because you only want to double-spend if you loss the bet. If you tried
to double-spend every bet, there'd be no point :)