Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2022, 03:16:40 PM *
News: Bitcointalk Community Awards
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Re: TX replacement and nLockTime  (Read 495 times)
mmeijeri (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500

Martijn Meijering


View Profile
April 07, 2014, 02:28:07 PM
 #1

I don't understand how you could ever rely on a newer transaction overriding an older one unless unlocked transactions make it into the blockchain in a "passive mode".

ROI is not a verb, the term you're looking for is 'to break even'.
1670253400
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670253400

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670253400
Reply with quote  #2

1670253400
Report to moderator
1670253400
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670253400

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670253400
Reply with quote  #2

1670253400
Report to moderator
1670253400
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670253400

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670253400
Reply with quote  #2

1670253400
Report to moderator
The forum was founded in 2009 by Satoshi and Sirius. It replaced a SourceForge forum.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1670253400
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670253400

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670253400
Reply with quote  #2

1670253400
Report to moderator
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 3822
Merit: 7214



View Profile
April 07, 2014, 02:43:31 PM
 #2

I don't understand how you could ever rely on a newer transaction overriding an older one unless unlocked transactions make it into the blockchain in a "passive mode".
You can't. If replacement was functional in the network you could pay a higher fee and hope that this incentivizes the next miner to do the right thing, but it's not a guarantee. (And I can't see how any amount of 'passive mode' could really help there, except perhaps by making sure the sequence number cranks only in one direction, but someone could still fail to include a newer one).
mmeijeri (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500

Martijn Meijering


View Profile
April 07, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
 #3

And I can't see how any amount of 'passive mode' could really help there, except perhaps by making sure the sequence number cranks only in one direction, but someone could still fail to include a newer one

Yeah, but then at least you'd know about it in advance, before the transaction was locked.

ROI is not a verb, the term you're looking for is 'to break even'.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!