I used to wonder why BCH/BSV shitcoiners are so dead-set on their unconfirmed transactions being good enough for a merchant to accept. It looks like the idea started with Satoshi himself.
I find this baffling because the whitepaper is very clear that a transaction needs to be in a block before it is final, and finality is probabalistic, with more blocks on top of the block containing that transaction increasing the likelihood of its finality.
Another issue is that there is no way for consensus rules to prevent a miner from putting double spend transactions in a block because consensus is only built around the state of the blockchain, not the state of the mempool. It's like he's trying to come up with a pre-consensus consensus.
You can read here where he's involved in a discussion about a hypothetical Bitcoin snack machine: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
I used to wonder why BCH/BSV shitcoiners are so dead-set on their unconfirmed transactions being good enough for a merchant to accept. It looks like the idea started with Satoshi himself.
I find this baffling because the whitepaper is very clear that a transaction needs to be in a block before it is final, and finality is probabalistic, with more blocks on top of the block containing that transaction increasing the likelihood of its finality.
Another issue is that there is no way for consensus rules to prevent a miner from putting double spend transactions in a block because consensus is only built around the state of the blockchain, not the state of the mempool. It's like he's trying to come up with a pre-consensus consensus.