📅 Original date posted:2014-04-25
📝 Original message:On 24/04/14 22:07, Chris Pacia wrote:
> It would work but it's an ugly hack IMO. What do people do if they don't
> have extra to pay when making a purchase? I have 200 mbtc and want to
> buy a 200 mbtc phone but I can't because I need 400 mbtc. Sucks for me.
I don't see why it couldn't work with just 200mBTC.
* you sign a 200mBTC TX to me, walk out of my shop with the phone
* you immediately sign & broadcast a double-spend TX with higher fee
* my POS computer (or BitPay's) sees the double spend, immediately
spends the initial TX to fees, and sounds the shoplifting alarm.
You don't get any money back, but you do get an angry shopkeeper chasing
you down the street / calling the police / blacklisting you from the
store. Assuming my POS computer's behaviour was completely automated and
widespread - and therefore predictable on your part - why would you ever
try this?
The number of people irrational enough to try this /knowing it never
works/ is likely to be way lower than the number who just stuff the
phone in their pocket and shoplift the old fashioned way. So I'd be
comfortable without the extra 200mBTC collateral :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140425/6303edf4/attachment.sig>;
Gareth Williams [ARCHIVE] /
npub1jk…373ck
2023-06-07 15:19:57
in reply to nevent1q…rt6n
Author Public Key
npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ckPublished at
2023-06-07 15:19:57Event JSON
{
"id": "92b030869cc862d330a181b16476efbf9a86e4083e1571bf37b8b5cebe414f9d",
"pubkey": "959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411",
"created_at": 1686151197,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cbae5370c0fac063b93fe25e463d6a23eaea87b5ec5150107ff016f5d75aa470",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"37400a533dd86221e168222d45b374c533a9abce67e2b04493feb49306806401",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"407caab1ead94ab930ec1e556e8c5fbc7f412367e06de9700b0d0a7cbaeab9a2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-25\n📝 Original message:On 24/04/14 22:07, Chris Pacia wrote:\n\u003e It would work but it's an ugly hack IMO. What do people do if they don't\n\u003e have extra to pay when making a purchase? I have 200 mbtc and want to\n\u003e buy a 200 mbtc phone but I can't because I need 400 mbtc. Sucks for me.\n\nI don't see why it couldn't work with just 200mBTC.\n* you sign a 200mBTC TX to me, walk out of my shop with the phone\n* you immediately sign \u0026 broadcast a double-spend TX with higher fee\n* my POS computer (or BitPay's) sees the double spend, immediately\nspends the initial TX to fees, and sounds the shoplifting alarm.\n\nYou don't get any money back, but you do get an angry shopkeeper chasing\nyou down the street / calling the police / blacklisting you from the\nstore. Assuming my POS computer's behaviour was completely automated and\nwidespread - and therefore predictable on your part - why would you ever\ntry this?\n\nThe number of people irrational enough to try this /knowing it never\nworks/ is likely to be way lower than the number who just stuff the\nphone in their pocket and shoplift the old fashioned way. So I'd be\ncomfortable without the extra 200mBTC collateral :-)\n\n\n\n\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 555 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140425/6303edf4/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "56e0acfb550e268bf52577b2c023cb0eb04c43c37ba809d30b1a92f8ef554901a77940e1d3c9a1ac52f12bdb57ab1a110ebe315cac4f8ad460893d0e3bb83000"
}