📅 Original date posted:2014-06-16
📝 Original message:Mike Hearn <mike <at> plan99.net> writes:
> Actually Tom is running a page where he shows double spends detected by
his node or relayed by mine (there are only two nodes in this little
detection network currently), and it does show double spends that occur
seconds, minutes or even days apart.
I only meant that double spends minutes apart are possible and that by then
the sole use of a monitor is too late even if it will tell you.
> Regardless, whether that approach helps or not is off topic for this
thread. Let's all hope it does and discuss the details in some other thread,
or on the pull request.
Fair enough.
> Yes indeed, if you want to do high frequency trading then every
millisecond counts and you probably don't want to rely on watching
transactions propagate across the block chain. For inter-exchange traffic
this BIP would probably be useful. I've been talking about the consumer
case.
That's quite different, granted.
> No, I expect there to be many kinds of trades where dispute mediation is
unnecessary, e.g. when I buy a drink at Starbucks or a burger at McDonalds
the chances of me wanting to charge it back is basically zero. Same for
sending between people who know each other, large corporate transactions
where the threat of a lawsuit is more useful than mediation, etc.
I wouldn't assume that if bitcoin alone (i.e. without third parties) can't
be used for medium-high value purchases then it's useless.
> But for transactions where third parties are needed for dispute mediation,
yes, I'd expect there to be a handful of well known trusted names for the
majority of such transactions, and then a long tail of specialists who only
mediate e.g. purchases of rare Aztec artifacts or other things where a
generic company might be easily fooled.
Agreed.
Lawrence Nahum [ARCHIVE] /
npub1q9…w5u98
2023-06-07 15:22:45
in reply to nevent1q…fnyt
Author Public Key
npub1q96r67z2pgf6zg3t7zkxd77fdgzz8euhwazmkdh4adrlrlt40unqnw5u98Published at
2023-06-07 15:22:45Event JSON
{
"id": "57d2d987988dd73e606d126fafeeb88e2c0a374a214593feace9aa32fc40f20f",
"pubkey": "01743d784a0a13a1222bf0ac66fbc96a0423e7977745bb36f5eb47f1fd757f26",
"created_at": 1686151365,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed0eede28e160c2ef8ddd5af1ee3069fdb0eb5f4c939c1c09a1a5f338c30c628",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9dae8e5ef3c833e395cee0ee91545a4b1fac1c015c6437b3bee0dbbd0c1b39de",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-16\n📝 Original message:Mike Hearn \u003cmike \u003cat\u003e plan99.net\u003e writes:\n\n\u003e Actually Tom is running a page where he shows double spends detected by \nhis node or relayed by mine (there are only two nodes in this little \ndetection network currently), and it does show double spends that occur \nseconds, minutes or even days apart.\n\nI only meant that double spends minutes apart are possible and that by then \nthe sole use of a monitor is too late even if it will tell you.\n\n\u003e Regardless, whether that approach helps or not is off topic for this \nthread. Let's all hope it does and discuss the details in some other thread, \nor on the pull request.\n\nFair enough.\n\n\u003e Yes indeed, if you want to do high frequency trading then every \nmillisecond counts and you probably don't want to rely on watching \ntransactions propagate across the block chain. For inter-exchange traffic \nthis BIP would probably be useful. I've been talking about the consumer \ncase.\n\nThat's quite different, granted.\n\n\u003e No, I expect there to be many kinds of trades where dispute mediation is \nunnecessary, e.g. when I buy a drink at Starbucks or a burger at McDonalds \nthe chances of me wanting to charge it back is basically zero. Same for \nsending between people who know each other, large corporate transactions \nwhere the threat of a lawsuit is more useful than mediation, etc.\n\nI wouldn't assume that if bitcoin alone (i.e. without third parties) can't \nbe used for medium-high value purchases then it's useless. \n\n\u003e But for transactions where third parties are needed for dispute mediation, \nyes, I'd expect there to be a handful of well known trusted names for the \nmajority of such transactions, and then a long tail of specialists who only \nmediate e.g. purchases of rare Aztec artifacts or other things where a \ngeneric company might be easily fooled.\n\nAgreed.",
"sig": "81dd682c4b5925da3e3603bd7725d03d0864cb46172c4c4b35ca545829e2c76f8eec48e3047c838cfe7ba4ebc54f7f9e2d6563526ddf64d6fa14854501d68533"
}