Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.52; envelope-from=natanael.l@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f52.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54EA02E7.8060708@localhost.local>
References: <CALqxMTGBVdMX2RkuXNhkJ38XRM6DgAj+OmQTfHWuVF=emD-06Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150222123428.GA6570@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAAt2M18fPgYOsfdebmU1Tk6ATnndPBn0k2PN-4fUJs1iTBTqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2953246.T2DHreG0Tu@crushinator> <54E9FD05.3000807@localhost.local>
	<CAAt2M19u6AsULxUov9Z6JP+ByJRCaj3s5hQfe3TT-zfKgCuyxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54EA02E7.8060708@localhost.local>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:36:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAt2M1-DbpqsYZcng+SJyHMxyt-_POSo5DEsUXz_LzmJud5WaA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b624dfed64572050fafe340
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes
 double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)
Precedence: list

--047d7b624dfed64572050fafe340
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

- Sent from my tablet
Den 22 feb 2015 17:25 skrev "Justus Ranvier" <justusranvier@riseup.net>:
>
> You just disproved your own argument.
>
> It is possible to predict risk, and therefore to price the risk.

Your fault is that you assume the predictions can be reliable and
trustable.

They can not be.

The data you have available has none of the indicators you actually NEED to
make predictions. You're making extrapolations from the past, not
calculations based on recent trends and behavior globally.

> You also noted that for some Bitcoin users, the price of that risk is
> too high for the types of transactions in which wish to engage.
>
> In what way does that translated into a universal requirement for
> everybody to use multisignature notaries?

It isn't universal. It is just the most practical solution if you need
instant confirmation for high value transactions with customers you don't
yet trust.

> Surely the users who can afford the risk can use zero conf if they
> like, and those who can't can use multisig notaries?

Use whatever you want. I don't care. I will warn you about the risks and
make suggestions, but I won't force you to do anything differently.

--047d7b624dfed64572050fafe340
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p dir="ltr"></p>
<p dir="ltr">- Sent from my tablet<br>
Den 22 feb 2015 17:25 skrev &quot;Justus Ranvier&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:justusranvier@riseup.net">justusranvier@riseup.net</a>&gt;:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; You just disproved your own argument.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; It is possible to predict risk, and therefore to price the risk.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Your fault is that you assume the predictions can be reliable and trustable. </p>
<p dir="ltr">They can not be. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The data you have available has none of the indicators you actually NEED to make predictions. You&#39;re making extrapolations from the past, not calculations based on recent trends and behavior globally. </p>
<p dir="ltr">&gt; You also noted that for some Bitcoin users, the price of that risk is<br>
&gt; too high for the types of transactions in which wish to engage.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In what way does that translated into a universal requirement for<br>
&gt; everybody to use multisignature notaries?</p>
<p dir="ltr">It isn&#39;t universal. It is just the most practical solution if you need instant confirmation for high value transactions with customers you don&#39;t yet trust. </p>
<p dir="ltr">&gt; Surely the users who can afford the risk can use zero conf if they<br>
&gt; like, and those who can&#39;t can use multisig notaries?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Use whatever you want. I don&#39;t care. I will warn you about the risks and make suggestions, but I won&#39;t force you to do anything differently.<br>
</p>

--047d7b624dfed64572050fafe340--