📅 Original date posted:2013-12-03
📝 Original message:On 3 December 2013 11:46, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> If users want to pay with a huge transaction then it seems to me the user
>> should cover that cost. Allowing users to pay merchants with 100K
>> transactions full of dust and expecting them to eat the cost seems like a
>> great way to enable bleed-the-merchant-dry attacks.
>>
>
> A merchant can always refuse the payment and refund it if that's a
> practical problem. I doubt it would be though. If a user is trying to buy
> something from the merchant, they will want it to work, and it'll be up to
> the developers of the wallet they're using to ensure it never does anything
> obnoxious or unacceptable that would result in people hating to receive
> money from that app.
>
Refunds in this circumstance would be problematic because someone is going
to lose because they have to pay the fee. If the sender's money is refunded
minus the fee, they will be unhappy. And the merchant will be unhappy about
having had an unacceptable transaction they have to send back, and eat a
fee for the privilege.
This kind of situation needs to be avoided at all costs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131203/85ad8acd/attachment.html>;
Drak [ARCHIVE] /
npub12r…3aqxc
2023-06-07 15:10:10
in reply to nevent1q…t5k9
Author Public Key
npub12rkw0jajmsck4uwdtksdvtswrlkypusfryjzera7m4fhqta6jhdsz3aqxcPublished at
2023-06-07 15:10:10Event JSON
{
"id": "8970884bf9ae771daca92b9abe426f185ed2b1848a7b494f4e1c439c4fee8be0",
"pubkey": "50ece7cbb2dc316af1cd5da0d62e0e1fec40f20919242c8fbedd53702fba95db",
"created_at": 1686150610,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f082c8a0fa2ac5febf83583d19b2776fdb1875fb3ab2eae661676f17ee054405",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"146bd15f6f9265f6ada844aa9bca235326e2d307019124dc948eb4b6270393cd",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-12-03\n📝 Original message:On 3 December 2013 11:46, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If users want to pay with a huge transaction then it seems to me the user\n\u003e\u003e should cover that cost. Allowing users to pay merchants with 100K\n\u003e\u003e transactions full of dust and expecting them to eat the cost seems like a\n\u003e\u003e great way to enable bleed-the-merchant-dry attacks.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e A merchant can always refuse the payment and refund it if that's a\n\u003e practical problem. I doubt it would be though. If a user is trying to buy\n\u003e something from the merchant, they will want it to work, and it'll be up to\n\u003e the developers of the wallet they're using to ensure it never does anything\n\u003e obnoxious or unacceptable that would result in people hating to receive\n\u003e money from that app.\n\u003e\n\nRefunds in this circumstance would be problematic because someone is going\nto lose because they have to pay the fee. If the sender's money is refunded\nminus the fee, they will be unhappy. And the merchant will be unhappy about\nhaving had an unacceptable transaction they have to send back, and eat a\nfee for the privilege.\n\nThis kind of situation needs to be avoided at all costs.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131203/85ad8acd/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "0677d5e1ce7af10303bcb485ee1cea110f3b8cd86c56d2be5a88f9d1972aa53b989ae9499ae9a1d66c0a6497b7fa3c953cf212a8d4f111648b2cc4443785ddb4"
}