3 ms·
With Bitcoin you have to enable the "replace by fee" flag on a transaction to allow that. Merchants could check transactions for if it is set. If miners did ch
by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
With Bitcoin you have to enable the "replace by fee" flag on a transaction to allow that. Merchants could check transactions for if it is set.
If miners did change their Bitcoin nodes to facilitate double spending even with RBF disabled, that would erode trust in Bitcoin and thereby de-valuate it, which is probably not in the interest of miners. They'd damage the thing they're heavily invested in.
- bootlooped 6y agoThere's probably a tragedy of the commons situation there though.
- hiq 6y ago> With Bitcoin you have to enable the "replace by fee" flag on a transaction to allow that. Description of the "replace by fee" mechanism you're mentioning: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Replace_by_fee https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Replace_by_fee This page mentions that it is a "node policy", and from your comment I think we both agree that nothing in the protocol (which roughly guarantees that Bitcoin is fine as long as 51% of the hashing power belongs to benevolent actors) ensures these rules are in place. Now, you're saying there would be some reputational damage which leads to devaluation which is bad for Bitcoin, so bad for miners, so they wouldn't do that. This will not happen until such payments represent a big share of Bitcoin transactions. In particular, if a few merchants were to start accepting transactions that are not mined and just propagated, they could easily be "victims" (again, it's economically rational for miners) of double spending and there would be no impact on the valuation of Bitcoin.