On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: >> My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed >> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical >> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something >> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the >> current weaker 0-conf transactions. >> >> If I understand this is also your own motivation. > > Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective > tools > to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their > effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few > people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore.
You mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while working for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to sell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this. I and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out that they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success rates. > As for the > remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my > consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person > trading for instance. A "team" You mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized LocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
