Talk:Protocol rules: Difference between revisions
Created page with "= Proposed Recommended Rule Changes = == Transaction override == === Change === {| class="wikitable" |- | Before|| Tx || 9 || Reject if any other tx in the pool uses the same ..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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'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) | |||
Revision as of 13:33, 8 April 2012
Proposed Recommended Rule Changes
Transaction override
Change
| Before | Tx | 9 | Reject if any other tx in the pool uses the same transaction output as one used by this tx. |
| 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 |
Rationale
When the default client sends a transaction without a sufficient transaction fee to complete, the coin ends up in limbo. The default client won't allow spending of any of the input coins, but the network won't forward the coin to any neighbours. This means that miners never add the coin to the chain.
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.
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'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!! --Rebroad 13:33, 8 April 2012 (GMT)