Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <201404231057.54387.andyparkins@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201404231057.54387.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:07:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0EYLjkrLnzqSbdTVaTZ_gSnmoOpByexgO9=wPm9Pk_Ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113356c6c54eae04f7b3bc0d
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
	Finney attacks
Precedence: list

--001a113356c6c54eae04f7b3bc0d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Just pedantry: 100% of credit card transactions _can_ be fradulantly
> charged
> back but arent.
>

If you do a chargeback the bank double checks this, investigates it and
people who repeatedly try and do fraudulent chargebacks get their accounts
terminated. It's not like your bank offers you a "reverse this payment"
button in the UI that always works, right?


> If N was 5%, then only 5% of bitcoin transactions _could_ be fraudulantly
> "charged back"; so then why wouldn't only 2% of those bitcoin transactions
> be fraudulant too, just as in the CC case?
>

If you attempt fraud against a bank, they know who you are and will come
after you in one way or another. But it's safe to assume that users of a
double spend service would be anonymous and the kind of merchants they go
after are not hassling their customers with strong ID checks, so there
would be no consequences for them. It's a game they can only win.

--001a113356c6c54eae04f7b3bc0d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">Just pedantry: 100% of credit card transactions =
_can_ be fradulantly charged<br>

back but arent.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you do a chargeback =
the bank double checks this, investigates it and people who repeatedly try =
and do fraudulent chargebacks get their accounts terminated. It&#39;s not l=
ike your bank offers you a &quot;reverse this payment&quot; button in the U=
I that always works, right?<br>
</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If N was 5%, then onl=
y 5% of bitcoin transactions _could_ be fraudulantly<br>
&quot;charged back&quot;; so then why wouldn&#39;t only 2% of those bitcoin=
 transactions<br>
be fraudulant too, just as in the CC case?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>If you attempt fraud against a bank, they know who you are and will com=
e after you in one way or another. But it&#39;s safe to assume that users o=
f a double spend service would be anonymous and the kind of merchants they =
go after are not hassling their customers with strong ID checks, so there w=
ould be no consequences for them. It&#39;s a game they can only win.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div>

--001a113356c6c54eae04f7b3bc0d--