📅 Original date posted:2015-02-22
📝 Original message:On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:
>> My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed
>> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical
>> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something
>> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the
>> current weaker 0-conf transactions.
>>
>> If I understand this is also your own motivation.
>
> Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective
> tools
> to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their
> effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few
> people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore.
You mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while
working for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to
sell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this.
I and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out
that they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success
rates.
> As for the
> remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my
> consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person
> trading for instance.
A "team"
You mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized
LocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions.
joliver at airmail.cc [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zh…vtp39
2023-06-07 15:30:57
in reply to nevent1q…t382
Author Public Key
npub1zhglq8mpxxgea52rw22s7s7rjfp74pm2j4vh42djwqd899wen2hsjvtp39Published at
2023-06-07 15:30:57Event JSON
{
"id": "d39694d71a848dfc4f3588ea9b9fd2adbe6a476aeab070f5c45055c24eb86031",
"pubkey": "15d1f01f6131919ed14372950f43c39243ea876a95597aa9b2701a7295d99aaf",
"created_at": 1686151857,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"00335b798bd3386560c6501fdcb4ac491a0b697640f4bb1d0fb0617840851a89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8739b8ef1ab0f10b50c3e8ff1fffd38c42d05616443bec05ca99732ba09fae73",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-22\n📝 Original message:On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +0000, Adam Back wrote:\n\u003e\u003e My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed\n\u003e\u003e away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical\n\u003e\u003e security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something\n\u003e\u003e better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the\n\u003e\u003e current weaker 0-conf transactions.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e If I understand this is also your own motivation.\n\u003e \n\u003e Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective \n\u003e tools\n\u003e to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their\n\u003e effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few\n\u003e people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore.\n\nYou mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while \nworking for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to \nsell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this.\n\nI and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out \nthat they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success \nrates.\n\n\u003e As for the\n\u003e remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my\n\u003e consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person\n\u003e trading for instance.\n\nA \"team\"\n\nYou mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized \nLocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions.",
"sig": "1e08921f48043d92bd853f66e579805ee38d2823c0d8e2b99b2540665f520e413333c14990286c88369edde50503ceae0cac1750e9b92ada98fcbc653df375cc"
}