4

I've been running into problems with a high-traffic hot wallet, where a single transaction would lock up any input for a block with the spendzeroconfchange disabled.

Would it be safe for a service like Coinbase to use unconfirmed inputs on average transactions? Would I run into similar issues like MtGox did?

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    It's not safe at all. Don't do it unless you believe that constantly rolling back your business transactions (to re-adjust your business logic to TXs that never confirm because their unspent/unconfirmed outputs were (double) spent from their previous owner) won't cause huge problems to your service sooner or later.
    – user11221
    Oct 14, 2014 at 8:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Safety is relative---large payment processors like Coinbase probably have non-block-chain anti-fraud measures. However, a confirmation (and each additional confirmation after it) reduces the risk of a double spend fraud, so waiting for a certain number of confirmations is an easy and effective anti-fraud measure that doesn't cost you anything.

I don't know for sure what happened to MtGox, but it is true that an unconfirmed transaction can become effectively unspendable if any of its inputs become unavailable---which could happen because a block was created containing a transaction that already spent that input (a double spent) or because the transaction which created that input was added to a block in a mutated form (transaction malleability).

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.