📅 Original date posted:2013-05-07
📝 Original message:> You mean scam you with a zero-conf transaction that hasn't actually been
> broadcast?
Yeah. Or just scam you at all. It's hard to imagine an organisation as
a big as a mobile carrier engaging in financial scamming (roaming fees
excepted).
I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating. The
double-spend protection the block chain gives you has a sweet spot
where it's really, really valuable (essential even) and then there are
lots of kinds of transactions on either side of that sweet spot that
don't really benefit from it.
Obvious/trivial case where you don't need a block chain - Facebook
buys Instagram for a gajillion coins. The legal system is plenty good
enough to ensure the payments are honoured. Another example, when my
employer pays me my salary. They aren't going to double spend this
except through some horrible accident that we can get sorted out some
other way.
Another case, very small payments. This is Satoshi's bag of crisps
example. If the cost/complexity of double spending is higher than what
the payment is worth, again, you don't really need the block chain.
That's why it's worth optimising unconfirmed transactions to be harder
to double spend, it optimises (pushes up) that lower bar.
Place where you really want the chain - largeish sums of money are
moving around, but not large enough to justify expensive
cross-jurisdictional legal action, or where the cost of identity
verification and all the associated paperwork is just too high. I
guess most online transactions fall into this bucket today.
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:01:22
in reply to nevent1q…vfqp
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:01:22Event JSON
{
"id": "699e318be7532d5e31543cd925d9e4ea5ee2c2da42e3d269abe4771def0ca259",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686150082,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8f17d7252b4579422dc7433ef0a4296b9c4b424214e310c8a705de524992f8e1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b3754b149d83c3471b61c693b923d59a2031618e3dec399b72d3eb6c6057519",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-05-07\n📝 Original message:\u003e You mean scam you with a zero-conf transaction that hasn't actually been\n\u003e broadcast?\n\nYeah. Or just scam you at all. It's hard to imagine an organisation as\na big as a mobile carrier engaging in financial scamming (roaming fees\nexcepted).\n\nI've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating. The\ndouble-spend protection the block chain gives you has a sweet spot\nwhere it's really, really valuable (essential even) and then there are\nlots of kinds of transactions on either side of that sweet spot that\ndon't really benefit from it.\n\nObvious/trivial case where you don't need a block chain - Facebook\nbuys Instagram for a gajillion coins. The legal system is plenty good\nenough to ensure the payments are honoured. Another example, when my\nemployer pays me my salary. They aren't going to double spend this\nexcept through some horrible accident that we can get sorted out some\nother way.\n\nAnother case, very small payments. This is Satoshi's bag of crisps\nexample. If the cost/complexity of double spending is higher than what\nthe payment is worth, again, you don't really need the block chain.\nThat's why it's worth optimising unconfirmed transactions to be harder\nto double spend, it optimises (pushes up) that lower bar.\n\nPlace where you really want the chain - largeish sums of money are\nmoving around, but not large enough to justify expensive\ncross-jurisdictional legal action, or where the cost of identity\nverification and all the associated paperwork is just too high. I\nguess most online transactions fall into this bucket today.",
"sig": "72464cac0702df28c24a56b1b79ee8987cf9904a0088375fd44183b0a92030be442a8eebd63f196405f0f818e79c92e87dafc1a387fb8cb04a886c63add9d3b2"
}