MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5584B80A.7000403@petersson.at>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<20150619154054.GA13498@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAMK47c84w=2c9y8MKHTzFf05DmKXz74a=iFViA-oZ1uRDZCAWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6716121.uS5ifrNBZv@crushinator> <5584B80A.7000403@petersson.at>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:09:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-u6fmpnojpQmrFEMRK56WDsfhZgm406C3tVax5hsX2sOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8642e6d4680518e8b3b7
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Precedence: list

--90e6ba6e8642e6d4680518e8b3b7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides,
for example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on
single-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

--90e6ba6e8642e6d4680518e8b3b7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what ligh=
tning provides, for example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not =
reliance on single-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe=
.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri=
, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:andreas@petersson.at" target=3D"_blank">andreas@petersson.at</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have some experience=
 here. If you are seriously suggesting these<br>
measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.<br>
<br>
In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a<br>
similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much<br>
lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill for a sandwich might turn out fake later)<br>
and the fraud frequency is also much lower.<br>
<br>
0-conf concerns were never a problem in practice. except for 2-way atms<br>
i have never heard of a problem that was caused by double spends.<br>
while adding these measures is generally positive, requiring them means<br>
excluding 99.9% of the potential users. so you might as well not do it.<br>
<br>
RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility<br>
value. So it&#39;s a bad thing.<br>
<br>
for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of<br>
confirmations was always recommended practice.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
Am 19.06.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Matt Whitlock:<br>
&gt; Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin<=
br>
&gt; payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the<br>
&gt; irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several<br>
&gt; blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a<br>
&gt; co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign=
<br>
&gt; a double-spend.<br>
<br>
</div></div><br>-----------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--90e6ba6e8642e6d4680518e8b3b7--