đ
Original date posted:2014-04-23
đ Original message:On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 12:45:34 Mike Hearn wrote:
> OK, sure, let's say most Bitcoin users will be honest (we hope). But
> unfortunately in a situation where fraud is possible users wouldn't
> necessarily distribute evenly over transactions.
That's true, but even in the worst that that 5% hashing power attack means
that 95% of the time, your attack fails. That means you end up paying for
what you bought. Also, you're again changing the comparison basis -- your
CC figures were for the entire industry, not the most badly affected
merchant. You can't say "one particular bitcoin merchant suffers 5% fraud,
therefore that's worse than the 2% fraud averaged across all CC merchants".
> If a merchant is selling something of value repeatedly, then a small
> number of scammers can go back and try their luck over and over. I'm not
> sure how many trades fall into such an exploitable category, though.
>
> Also, there's the philosophical question of how honest people really are
> when there's no consequences to their actions. For instance, if most
There _are_ consequences though: 95% of the time, you end up buying
something and paying for it.
Viewed another way, if I buy something repeatedly from an at risk merchant
(and there won't be many; as you pointed out, mail order is completely
unaffected as you can simply wait for your confirmations) that costs, say
0.01 BTC per item, then I have to buy 100 of them to get 5 of them for free.
Do I really want 100 of them? Even if I do want them, then I've had to
supply capital of 1 BTC to earn 0.05 BTC in kind.
If what I'm buying is another form of money (as with exchanges, or perhaps
casinos) when that "in kind" is just as liquid as the BTC, then fair enough,
there is a risk, but that just incentivises the merchant in those cases to
not allow withdrawal/deposit until 6 confirmations have been received.
Those merchants then move from "at risk" to "not at risk".
I'm still struggling to see how bitcoin could ever be as bad as CC fraud.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
Andy Parkins [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nxâŚ7wjrv
2023-06-07 15:19:26
in reply to nevent1qâŚyz0z
Author Public Key
npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrvSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:19:26Event JSON
{
"id": "cc98891e789e4e702cf458d3fef98a68f1ac9a66fff8f82615db07620063bb47",
"pubkey": "99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59",
"created_at": 1686151166,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5090665aad23a77b012135979db1e16bc811db23aa511d1ac7d17a56045795a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7319000f1cae8636bf0e04ea547c6ddb5d236a4ddf2fa58c5ec72b64746ca98f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "đ
Original date posted:2014-04-23\nđ Original message:On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 12:45:34 Mike Hearn wrote:\n\n\u003e OK, sure, let's say most Bitcoin users will be honest (we hope). But\n\u003e unfortunately in a situation where fraud is possible users wouldn't\n\u003e necessarily distribute evenly over transactions.\n\nThat's true, but even in the worst that that 5% hashing power attack means \nthat 95% of the time, your attack fails. That means you end up paying for \nwhat you bought. Also, you're again changing the comparison basis -- your \nCC figures were for the entire industry, not the most badly affected \nmerchant. You can't say \"one particular bitcoin merchant suffers 5% fraud, \ntherefore that's worse than the 2% fraud averaged across all CC merchants\".\n\n\u003e If a merchant is selling something of value repeatedly, then a small\n\u003e number of scammers can go back and try their luck over and over. I'm not\n\u003e sure how many trades fall into such an exploitable category, though.\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, there's the philosophical question of how honest people really are\n\u003e when there's no consequences to their actions. For instance, if most\n\nThere _are_ consequences though: 95% of the time, you end up buying \nsomething and paying for it.\n\nViewed another way, if I buy something repeatedly from an at risk merchant \n(and there won't be many; as you pointed out, mail order is completely \nunaffected as you can simply wait for your confirmations) that costs, say \n0.01 BTC per item, then I have to buy 100 of them to get 5 of them for free. \nDo I really want 100 of them? Even if I do want them, then I've had to \nsupply capital of 1 BTC to earn 0.05 BTC in kind.\n\nIf what I'm buying is another form of money (as with exchanges, or perhaps \ncasinos) when that \"in kind\" is just as liquid as the BTC, then fair enough, \nthere is a risk, but that just incentivises the merchant in those cases to \nnot allow withdrawal/deposit until 6 confirmations have been received. \nThose merchants then move from \"at risk\" to \"not at risk\".\n\nI'm still struggling to see how bitcoin could ever be as bad as CC fraud.\n\n\n\nAndy\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins\nandyparkins at gmail.com",
"sig": "72c245ba1e710b074442ecf5905a9e25a971e4713677d3b22c8be8a1603c94cb864018fee945df0179aa63392ea10f875d2d1ac2ac4babda3f066dfa5f95142d"
}