Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed
by lostmsu on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @09:57PM
(#23242521)
Huh, I might misunderstand it, but that property appears to be broken in account-based cryptocurrencies like Ethereum. Since there's no concept of unspent outputs, what could protect ETH etc users in a similar way? Wallet transaction index?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed
by murbard2 on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @11:43PM
(#23243089)
There's a nonce on each account. If you see a transaction from the same account with the same nonce it's a double spend . Nonce can't be skipped either, so a double spend requires two transactions with the same nonce.
Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed
by somebodythere on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @11:01PM
(#23242880)
It is broken in Ethereum. In Ethereum, since consistency is enforced by transaction nonce rather than UTXOs, there is no way for a "watcher" to keep the payer honest by rebroadcasting a previously signed transaction output. Indeed, in Ethereum you can "cancel" a transaction in the mempool by signing a blank transaction with a higher fee and same nonce, which is by design.
Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed
by decentralised on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @03:53AM
(#23244397)
Mind you that a tx in the mempool has not yet produced any changes to state. In BTC you can also replace-by-fee for instance (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_replacement).
This page (https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Design-Rationale) contains a good overview of the UTXO vs Account model with each's strengths and weaknesses.