News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.

Re:402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed by lostmsu on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @11:16PM (#23242962)
How does Bitcoin decide which of the two transactions spending the same UTXO to pick?