Transaction

03248b3dccc7c5d72fd73a9b8488ed88fbf7c6e66cd66fa86e61baa1f20ecacd
Timestamp (utc)
2024-03-22 20:20:53
Fee Paid
0.00000010 BSV
(
0.00172954 BSV
-
0.00172944 BSV
)
Fee Rate
10.97 sat/KB
Version
1
Confirmations
95,032
Size Stats
911 B

2 Outputs

Total Output:
0.00172944 BSV
  • j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM“<div class="post">Everything I mentioned could be user-configurable, and most of it wouldn't slow down actual transactions. Even if you had all of these security features disabled, just having them implemented would give you plausible deniability in certain cases.<br/><br/>Block generation would be slowed in the case of a network split, so executing a double-spend would be even more difficult. I was thinking more of a problem like the Cogent-Level3 peering dispute, where there is no path between two ISPs for a long while. In this case, lots of transactions would be lost when the network is recombined and one of the chain's branches is discarded.</div> text/html
    https://whatsonchain.com/tx/03248b3dccc7c5d72fd73a9b8488ed88fbf7c6e66cd66fa86e61baa1f20ecacd