Message-ID: <5584B80A.7000403@petersson.at>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:47:06 +0200
From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>	<20150619154054.GA13498@savin.petertodd.org>	<CAMK47c84w=2c9y8MKHTzFf05DmKXz74a=iFViA-oZ1uRDZCAWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6716121.uS5ifrNBZv@crushinator>
In-Reply-To: <6716121.uS5ifrNBZv@crushinator>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020804040701010504060602"
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020804040701010504060602
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have some experience here. If you are seriously suggesting these
measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.

In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a
similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much
lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill for a sandwich might turn out fake later)
and the fraud frequency is also much lower.

0-conf concerns were never a problem in practice. except for 2-way atms
i have never heard of a problem that was caused by double spends.
while adding these measures is generally positive, requiring them means
excluding 99.9% of the potential users. so you might as well not do it.

RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility
value. So it's a bad thing.

for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of
confirmations was always recommended practice.

Am 19.06.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Matt Whitlock:
> Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin
> payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the
> irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several
> blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a
> co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign
> a double-spend. =20


--------------020804040701010504060602
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys;
 name="0xAA4EDEEF.asc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="0xAA4EDEEF.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
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=3DeIZG
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

--------------020804040701010504060602--