News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed. Parent comment

Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed by paulmd on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @08:02PM (#23241820)
there's no protocol-level guarantee of that, both transactions are perfectly valid, signed transactions and it's purely dependent on the good behavior of node operators to reject these

and in fact it is quite common to accept "double-spending" since that is really the only way to increase fees to push through a "stuck" transaction. Otherwise you have to wait an indeterminate (potentially forever) period of time until it exits the mempool of all network participants

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed by CalmStorm on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @08:27PM (#23242013)
If there are two valid, signed transactions that spend the same unspent input transaction (UTXO), only one of them will be included in the block. This is indeed guaranteed by the protocol [1].

[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81624/can-two-or...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed by fxtentacle on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @01:36AM (#23243585)
Yes, but "included in the block" means you either wait some hours or pay higher fees.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed by sp332 on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @08:55PM (#23242205)
Yes but it is in the best interest of the node operators to behave well in that way, so it's reasonably trustworthy even without protocol-level guarantees.
[ Parent | on HN ]