Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YLtCe-0007Ia-9c for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:49:08 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YLtCd-0001W7-8i for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:49:08 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id k48so9879265wev.0 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:49:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.61.145 with SMTP id p17mr7020698wjr.35.1423745341192; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:49:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:49:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:49:01 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dwuJCbN5mm8EEsAHmzoItbojQoc Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Natanael Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YLtCd-0001W7-8i Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:49:08 -0000 --047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Are you not counting collateralized multisignature notaries? Its an > extended version of the Greenaddress.it model. > It makes unconfirmed transactions useless in the classical Bitcoin model. Obviously if you introduce a trusted third party you can fix things, but then you're back to having the disadvantages of centralised trust. If unconfirmed payments become flaky enough that people stop using them, then a portion of the Bitcoin community will find workarounds like trusted third parties, trusted hardware, whatever and will just struggle one. Other people will look at the new tradeoffs/complexity, and decide that Bitcoin is no longer better for them than banks. --047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Are you not counting collateraliz= ed multisignature notaries? Its an extended version of the Greenaddress.it = model.

It makes unconfirmed transactions useless in th= e classical Bitcoin model. Obviously if you introduce a trusted third party= you can fix things, but then you're back to having the disadvantages o= f centralised trust.

If unconfirmed payments b= ecome flaky enough that people stop using them, then a portion of the Bitco= in community will find workarounds like trusted third parties, trusted hard= ware, whatever and will just struggle one. Other people will look at the ne= w tradeoffs/complexity, and decide that Bitcoin is no longer better for the= m than banks.
--047d7bacc0f25003cd050ee38b54--