[jseims]

I find this title misleading.

What this post describes is a 2-of-3 multisig, which adds further encumbrances in constructing a valid transaction.

But any transaction, once broadcast, is irreversible.

[olalonde]

You are arguing on semantics. The word "transaction" in the title doesn't refer to bits and bytes transactions found in the blockchain but to the more common definition "an instance of buying or selling something". I agree that a better title would have been: "Stop saying that Bitcoin transactions have to be irreversible".

[steveklabnik]

Every domain has domain terms: specialized knowledge and vocabulary.

Within payments, "transactions," "reversibility," "revocability," and "escrow" have definitions. Since BitCoin is in this space, I'd expect an article to use the domain terms from this space.

Yes, if you re-define these terms to mean something more colloquial, it may look like that. If you squint. But that doesn't make it not look amateurish.

[w-ll]

Not to be pedantic, but that's not necessarily true; we've had 1 major chain split before that killed ##'s of blocks containing thousands of transactions.

And also transactions that don't make it into a block will just die if the original node doesn't rebroadcast it. So after 1 confirm it's mostly irreversible.

[olalonde]

To be truly pedantic, those transactions were never Bitcoin transactions to begin with since they were never on the Bitcoin blockchain :)

[makomk]

To be truely pedantic, at the time they were on the Bitcoin blockchain, it wasn't until well after the incident started that the developers and pool owners decided to reject that blockchain (which was just as compliant with the stated Bitcoin rules and had a mining majority) and switch to the other side of the form.

[fragsworth]

That's pretty pedantic...

[paulgb]

I'm sure it isn't pedantic to the recipients of transactions in the orphaned block chain

[vacri]

To be pedantic, those aren't really 'reversed transactions' so much as 'data loss'. It's not like specific transactions were targeted. If a bank incorrectly recorded a credit card purchase of yours, you wouldn't classify it as 'a reversed transaction'.

[wmf]

If your transaction gets orphaned you can just broadcast it again.

[jameshart]

If the goods you purchased are already in your hands, and your bitcoin payment has been lost in a blockchain accident, what is your incentive to rebroadcast your bitcoin payment?

[wmf]

That's why this thread is discussing m-of-n and escrow. But since transactions are public anyone (like the recipient) could rebroadcast it.

[ZoF]

Honor my friend, honor. Unfortunately I find myself sorely lacking.

[unlimited_power]

I believe you can use nLockTime[0] to construct and broadcast a transaction that cannot be accepted into a block at least until a particular time. Before that time is reached, you should be able to broadcast a conflicting transaction if so desired that is included in a block sooner, thus invalidating the previously broadcast transaction.

[0] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/NLockTime

[nwh]

That's right. You have to keep broadcasting it though, the transaction won't be retained in the nodes storage for a long period of time.

[h0cked]

i am with you, i actually think the author coming from economics background who knows nothing about cryptography systems should just shut up before saying anything stupid in public...