I've been wondering about this. It's a given that once a transaction is on the timechain, it can't be undone, but is it really that straightforward? Why do some operators tell us to wait for more confirmations?
pull down to refresh
5 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 10h
You can find more information here: 👀 #814227
reply
34 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 10h
lol, sorry for orphaning this post
reply
121 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 9h
😂 There's no need to apologize. I'm just compiling the information so that other people can read it all. Thank you for getting involved and helping to understand this situation.
reply
111 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 9h
instead of reviewing reward changes I rather argued with @DarthCoin lol
👀
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9h
just get rid of all rewards #796213
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9h
Yes these kind of questions are really good !
reply
249 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 7h
Re-read page 6-8 of the white paper. Satoshi explains his reasoning and calculations.
In his examples, he estimated that IF the largest miner has 10% of hashrate, people should require 5-confs to reduce the probability that their transaction gets reorged to less than to 0.1%
A reorg happens when a miner is able to "undo" a block and replace it with multiple blocks which don't include your txn.
Foundry Pool regularly mines 6 blocks in a row. Foundry has approx 30% of hashrate today.
If Foundry wanted to be malicious, they clearly have enough hashrate to routinely reorg the chain.
So if we account for REALITY, satoshi would recommend requiring 24 block confirmations to reduce the probability of reorg to 0.1%.
reply
143 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 7h
Here's a list of orphaned blocks: https://bitcoinchain.com/block_explorer/orphaned
If you think mining pools are too centralized, you should require more confirmations for your txns, when possible.
If you operate a LN node, you can set the min required blocks before a channel becomes active, for example.
If you operate an economic node (like a bank or business) you can require more confs before delivering the merchandise or crediting the customer's account.
Unfortunately, you cannot easily require more confirmations as a user requesting withdrawals from an exchange. Maybe your widthdrawl is included in a block that immediately gets reorged or orphaned. Your widthdrawl tx is no longer included in any block nor the mempools at this point. Your only recourse is to plea to the exchange and hope that they recognize the validity of the reorg and re-issue the widthdrawl tx in your favor.
reply
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @flat24 9h
Thank you very much, this question led me to another @DarthCoin class on Bitcoin.
Excellent learning resources in these discussions.
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 9h
Not really a class, I just pointed to the right direction where people should look into.
@0xbitcoiner intentions with these questions are really good (he asked in the past other good questions) bringing serious and interesting discussion about using Bitcoin.
reply
33 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan 12h
Block split; blocks can be orphaned. You should really think of a 1-confirmation block as provisional only.
https://d-central.tech/orphan-blocks-the-overlooked-pieces-of-bitcoins-blockchain-puzzle/
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 7h
It would be interesting to know how often this happens.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 7h
👀 #814589
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 7h
not that often but not unheard of either. Google for exact figures
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 12h
This makes perfect sense. Don't you know of any other situations in which the timechain could split?
reply
131 sats \ 23 replies \ @DarthCoin 13h
In fact it is. But is much easier and cost less to do a RBF (revert) on it than 6 confirmations. After 6 confirmations is almost impossible to revert it.
reply
0 sats \ 22 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 13h
I'm a bit lost. Isn't RBF just for transactions waiting to be confirmed (mempool)? It doesn't work after the transaction is in a block, right?
reply
33 sats \ 21 replies \ @DarthCoin 13h
If the RBF have a higher fee and a miner willing to take, it will replace the previous one.
reply
100 sats \ 20 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 12h
I'm not 'concerned' about the mempool stage, but rather the post-confirmation period (1 confirmation). Just to be clear, 2 confirmations indicate the existence of one block subsequent to the block containing the transaction.
reply
0 sats \ 19 replies \ @DarthCoin 12h
https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/replace-by-fee/
reply
100 sats \ 16 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 12h
It's not about unconfirmed transactions. RBF is only for unconfirmed transactions waiting in the mempool.
reply
54 sats \ 15 replies \ @DarthCoin 12h
Yes you can, here is an example
https://medium.com/@overtorment/bitcoin-replace-by-fee-guide-e10032f9a93f
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Skipper 12h
interesting 👀
view replies
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 12h
My main question it's not about unconfirmed transactions. RBF is only for unconfirmed transactions waiting in the mempool. I'm talking about mined transactions.
view replies
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 11h
from your link:
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 10h
unconfirmed = not yet included in 6 blocks
confirmed = included in 6 blocks
reply
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 12h
Most of the time it is.
But every so often there is a contentious block between mining pools if a block is found at about the same time. The following block found usually determines the previous one. In this situation you could have 1 conf of your TX revert back to zero if the block winner didn't include it into their blocks.
This is why its a good idea to wait up to 6 confirmations.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 12h
@denlillaapan has already pointed this out.
👀 #814155
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DesertDave 7h
It's enough for me!
reply