<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://en.bitcoin.it/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Rghugh</id>
	<title>Bitcoin Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://en.bitcoin.it/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Rghugh"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rghugh"/>
	<updated>2026-06-16T19:35:43Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.8</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protocol_rules&amp;diff=29874</id>
		<title>Talk:Protocol rules</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protocol_rules&amp;diff=29874"/>
		<updated>2012-08-19T22:45:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Rghugh: /* Clarification of what is rejected during block verification */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Proposed Recommended Rule Changes =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Transaction override ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Change ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Before|| Tx || 9 || Reject if any other tx in the pool uses the same transaction output as one used by this tx.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| After || Tx || 9 || Reject if any other tx in the pool uses the same transaction output as one used by this tx, and has a greater or equal transaction fee&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rationale ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the default client sends a transaction without a sufficient transaction fee to complete, the coin ends up in limbo.  The default client won&#039;t allow spending of any of the input coins, but the network won&#039;t forward the coin to any neighbours.  This means that miners never add the coin to the chain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This change would allow the client to re-send the transaction with an increased fee.  Clients which already saw the old transaction will still forward the new transaction, since it has a higher fee.  The client could even prompt the user about any transaction which has been pending for more than an hour or 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. Also, if someone did try to double-spend in a way that could be mined, but not gossiped on the network, then this would be bad.. I&#039;d far rather have the double-spend attempt gossiped, so that my wallet can see it and put a big question mark against the transaction!! --[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] 13:33, 8 April 2012 (GMT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clarification of what is rejected during block verification ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the sentences like &amp;quot;For each input, if we are using the nth output of the earlier transaction, but it has fewer than n+1 outputs, reject&amp;quot;, it&#039;s not clear what&#039;s being rejected: the input, the transaction, or the block.  Please could this be stated explicitly in each case.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Rghugh</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>