4 ms·
Probably. Unless you're working in concert with major mining power, it's still hard to engineer a successful double-spend. And by pushing their preferred observ
by gojomo 13y ago
Probably. Unless you're working in concert with major mining power, it's still hard to engineer a successful double-spend. And by pushing their preferred observed transaction to major pools, Square could help ensure a double-spend can't succeed, or get a near-instant indication that a competing transaction exists. (I don't know if they're doing this.)
It also looks like most 'Square Market' purchases take more than an hour to deliver/ship... so the payment validity will be known before a hypothetical fraudster benefits.
- theswan 13y agoMakes me wonder - would we ever get to a point where it's in Square/Stripe/Coinbase/et. al's interests to contribute mining power to help their own transactions along? Or is that pretty much taken care of by transaction fees?
- gojomo 13y agoI suspect they'd just strike deals with existing mining specialists, if and when necessary, perhaps even via out-of-band (non-Bitcoin-transaction) exchanges of considerations.
- wmf 13y agoThere could be a problem with fees from a merchant's perspective because they are chosen by the sender and it's possible that someone could (accidentally or intentionally) pay with a transaction that never confirms. Merchant providers like BitPay/Coinbase/Stripe/Square might benefit from a way to pay fees on behalf of a transaction to ensure it gets confirmed.
- bradleysmith 13y ago>And by pushing their preferred observed transaction to major pools, Square could help ensure a double-spend can't succeed, or get a near-instant indication that a competing transaction exists. What would this even look like? is anyone doing 'specialized mining' like this, where particular hashing nodes are being used for preferential transactions?