š
Original date posted:2015-06-19
š Original message:What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides,
for example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on
single-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson <andreas at petersson.at>
wrote:
> I have some experience here. If you are seriously suggesting these
> measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.
>
> In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a
> similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much
> lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill for a sandwich might turn out fake later)
> and the fraud frequency is also much lower.
>
> 0-conf concerns were never a problem in practice. except for 2-way atms
> i have never heard of a problem that was caused by double spends.
> while adding these measures is generally positive, requiring them means
> excluding 99.9% of the potential users. so you might as well not do it.
>
> RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility
> value. So it's a bad thing.
>
> for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of
> confirmations was always recommended practice.
>
> Am 19.06.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Matt Whitlock:
> > Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin
> > payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the
> > irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several
> > blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a
> > co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign
> > a double-spend.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/c2719e0f/attachment.html>;
Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r3ā¦48d0u
2023-06-07 15:38:59
in reply to nevent1qā¦7cdz
Author Public Key
npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uPublished at
2023-06-07 15:38:59Event JSON
{
"id": "9e024ff2e4f8af451b0ac1f508532e51a8395422bd6aea4824ffded5ee81e993",
"pubkey": "1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069",
"created_at": 1686152339,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b4025f674cbd304cabd44490b09b3ceb927f752f6a9f4513b25fefc95bdc008",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"38995daea69ac09f96bbb2cb282e182a8e868060dacff47033798799c8cd9c92",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7888690f3f40427a03058866b3e6a433e5036d5e84cbf81036bfc6b5c83b9596"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-19\nš Original message:What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides,\nfor example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on\nsingle-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe.\n\nOn Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson \u003candreas at petersson.at\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e I have some experience here. If you are seriously suggesting these\n\u003e measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.\n\u003e\n\u003e In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a\n\u003e similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much\n\u003e lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill for a sandwich might turn out fake later)\n\u003e and the fraud frequency is also much lower.\n\u003e\n\u003e 0-conf concerns were never a problem in practice. except for 2-way atms\n\u003e i have never heard of a problem that was caused by double spends.\n\u003e while adding these measures is generally positive, requiring them means\n\u003e excluding 99.9% of the potential users. so you might as well not do it.\n\u003e\n\u003e RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility\n\u003e value. So it's a bad thing.\n\u003e\n\u003e for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of\n\u003e confirmations was always recommended practice.\n\u003e\n\u003e Am 19.06.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Matt Whitlock:\n\u003e \u003e Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin\n\u003e \u003e payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the\n\u003e \u003e irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several\n\u003e \u003e blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a\n\u003e \u003e co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign\n\u003e \u003e a double-spend.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/c2719e0f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "f0a0e3df3f2a9b377480c4627be9e59ab1e4de1cb2eec72818831ad54ef377194983a7cbde874d100baf5c33f681c9405752785be1866d472c64f3620aa78139"
}