Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6ayw-00022q-IY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:52:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.178; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6ayu-0005T3-RW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:52:02 +0000 Received: by pdbci14 with SMTP id ci14so60163829pdb.2 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:51:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.69.10.196 with SMTP id ec4mr48568779pbd.69.1434876715237; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id de4sm16157098pbb.95.2015.06.21.01.51.53 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1E606CE1-0BA9-450B-973F-8D784A26D3E7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:51:51 -0700 Message-Id: <659CB4B0-3C79-4C69-A9BF-C62A19A8FD9D@gmail.com> References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <04CE3756-B032-464C-8FBD-7ACDD1A3197D@gmail.com> <812d8353e66637ec182da31bc0a9aac1@riseup.net> <1727885.UUNByX4Jyd@crushinator> <83A7C606-B601-47D2-BE10-2A1412D97514@gmail.com> <8a49c53a032503eeca4f51cdef725fe1@riseup.net> <6d025db96e7aec4e6e47a76883a9a1e3@riseup.net> <70534C5D-8834-42B5-B495-FD9975E8FCF4@gmail.com> <30AF043D-A1F8-4502-8280-EBED6063B6B6@gmail.com> To: Btc Drak X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) 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 (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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 0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z6ayu-0005T3-RW Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Justus Ranvier Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee 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: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:52:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1E606CE1-0BA9-450B-973F-8D784A26D3E7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:41 AM, Btc Drak wrote: >=20 > Eric, >=20 > BitPay clearly do understand the risks of 0-conf. In case you were not = aware BitPay does not particularly "accept zero confirm transactions". = When a payment is seen on the network the payment screen reports the = invoice has been paid, but that's front-end user facing. On the back end = it's marked as paid but the API exposes the the confirmation status = allowing the merchant to make business decisions about when to progress = to fulfilment. A good example of this is Neteller (a sort of paypal = variant) which allows one to fund the account with fiat using Bitcoin, = via Bitpay. When you pay the bitpay invoice, your account is marked as = payment pending until there are some confirmations. >=20 I am glad to hear that. Yes, it absolutely makes sense to let the = merchant to make business decisions still pending confirmation (i.e. = should I actually ship?) > Coinbase does not expose the confirmation status and from what I = understand (not checked myself) they guarantee payment to merchants for = 0-confirm, regardless of whether they confirm or not. Then Coinbase is essentially taking on the role of an insurer=E2=80=A6are = they taking the appropriate precautions to limit potential losses? Can = they make up for these losses with fees? And if not (or if they don=E2=80=99= t really have a quantifiable risk model) could they survive a worst-case = scenario with at most a surface wound? (i.e. a systemic attack involving = many machines in many different places all attacking at once). It would be absolutely the height of idiocy to guarantee payment on = merchandise that has yet to ship, i.e. So I hope these reports are wrong = :) - Eric Lombrozo --Apple-Mail=_1E606CE1-0BA9-450B-973F-8D784A26D3E7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVhnsnAAoJEJNAI64YFENUDsIP/A30cdos6Unycb5oUVYiXHq3 oFrrhGE+1tXXaZryIC5BM5GID1G12tcqAY5rv1bRQSZ2B8Zk4BhztJ7FpY8o0yfm 0eCq4YMARSVduUruwOeIr5fi2GgLSxcQVTatXHsyyQy7bzNWUihoudatz5Bc7MxQ eeHDSkhOLUYluvIm8TdftIlQDyQ0KUaQcF4YtRYrKXEt4cFSy7d8xw4RrXjY6p1w ppISzld8Y/skTxnIcrFu0UsVXPeqkZeBGWK0seWb8LrEYHMqsjDbkxOiaYOl4i8b pk3yLkdqOuckjvjHNzHXpSLNirqxEk35daddasTwpggvz//p7wNReNYVaLzXI5IJ 4SSoG6OU558VSBQGWo4aiFw9SdScj9T8yOOx4Fhw4SvFC87kfyFRRzgpCSEuAu6B DMOlWpkqt4aR+QfTWIRiEV8HsRlgWYALrBnRq8zQdx+6HTuWjR54LkX7wQELedvW 1R+FgF9yBH2Wtj0DXu1AUbp2J6uFMprP6CuPxpdAEKmApNUt/uXzMOhaBWPMDzNh w/vKHGw/+78Usd4U5XSk/uv4C2MUQp1XyDaZ9Zavsj2ysULlwwFmh4lWYn08Ss5F h/6vZ2WmvGCLcubSykjUVSETUgMY+w0UMN29CVUIQPbl1aXfCM4BSWhOPHiRMBqZ mdzejxW8k2R3X3vH8yVL =t85o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1E606CE1-0BA9-450B-973F-8D784A26D3E7--