📅 Original date posted:2014-06-16
📝 Original message:>
> I don't see more than a bunch of accepted payment methods anywhere I
> ever been in my life, I don't see merchants trusting more than a handful of
> third parties.
>
Sure. I buy this. Although the credit card market is a great example of
what we *don't* want: a stagnant duopoly of trusted third parties who
rampantly abuse their position. So I'd hope we see either (a) nobody really
caring about this BIP because Bitcoin gives good enough double spend
protection or (b) lots of anti-double-spend providers (hundreds seems fine).
> Ultimately you care because the alternative is to wait.
>
No, I will never wait. Neither me nor the merchant wants to me to be
pointlessly hanging around for an hour. The alternative is to pay by credit
card or cash. Outside of experiments there is no such thing as a shop that
only accepts only Bitcoin and will require me to wait for a block because I
didn't use a TTP to guarantee anti-double spends.
So this seems like a fundamental problem to me: having the ability to say,
"here is a proof I won't double spend" is fine, but it doesn't achieve
anything if the merchant would have sold me the goods in return for a
normal Bitcoin tx anyway, which in practice they always will because this
system starts out from zero users and would have to work upwards. I
*especially* will never use this system if I have to pay for it - I'd much
rather just put my money into a wallet that can't generate these proofs and
pay the sticker price.
Maybe what this BIP needs is an extra field that lets the merchant say, I
will give you a discount of X satoshis if you give me a no-double-spends
proof. In other words invert it: the sticker price is what normal Bitcoin
transactions cost, and then your wallet shows you the regular BIP70 price
minus the discount plus the third parties fee as what you finally pay. I
compare it to the sticker price the merchant is asking and if it's lower
I'm happy, and if it's higher my wallet would automatically avoid using the
TTP because I don't want to ever pay more, only less.
The market would then figure out if the fees the TTP charges are worth the
lower losses due to double spending fraud.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140616/fc5f6e7b/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:22:51
in reply to nevent1q…ltlv
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:22:51Event JSON
{
"id": "6608fbcd8665d07feec856066f1425e1df5e4fb88c50a47b1ef9a16f9cde157c",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686151371,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed0eede28e160c2ef8ddd5af1ee3069fdb0eb5f4c939c1c09a1a5f338c30c628",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4295e89228898acc9fdcc00950e1fbc593313d15a1920dc46cc0613fc23eb0b6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"01743d784a0a13a1222bf0ac66fbc96a0423e7977745bb36f5eb47f1fd757f26"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-16\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e I don't see more than a bunch of accepted payment methods anywhere I\n\u003e ever been in my life, I don't see merchants trusting more than a handful of\n\u003e third parties.\n\u003e\n\nSure. I buy this. Although the credit card market is a great example of\nwhat we *don't* want: a stagnant duopoly of trusted third parties who\nrampantly abuse their position. So I'd hope we see either (a) nobody really\ncaring about this BIP because Bitcoin gives good enough double spend\nprotection or (b) lots of anti-double-spend providers (hundreds seems fine).\n\n\n\u003e Ultimately you care because the alternative is to wait.\n\u003e\n\nNo, I will never wait. Neither me nor the merchant wants to me to be\npointlessly hanging around for an hour. The alternative is to pay by credit\ncard or cash. Outside of experiments there is no such thing as a shop that\nonly accepts only Bitcoin and will require me to wait for a block because I\ndidn't use a TTP to guarantee anti-double spends.\n\nSo this seems like a fundamental problem to me: having the ability to say,\n\"here is a proof I won't double spend\" is fine, but it doesn't achieve\nanything if the merchant would have sold me the goods in return for a\nnormal Bitcoin tx anyway, which in practice they always will because this\nsystem starts out from zero users and would have to work upwards. I\n*especially* will never use this system if I have to pay for it - I'd much\nrather just put my money into a wallet that can't generate these proofs and\npay the sticker price.\n\nMaybe what this BIP needs is an extra field that lets the merchant say, I\nwill give you a discount of X satoshis if you give me a no-double-spends\nproof. In other words invert it: the sticker price is what normal Bitcoin\ntransactions cost, and then your wallet shows you the regular BIP70 price\nminus the discount plus the third parties fee as what you finally pay. I\ncompare it to the sticker price the merchant is asking and if it's lower\nI'm happy, and if it's higher my wallet would automatically avoid using the\nTTP because I don't want to ever pay more, only less.\n\nThe market would then figure out if the fees the TTP charges are worth the\nlower losses due to double spending fraud.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140616/fc5f6e7b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "db463e726e71ad160afd8d1468c588a38096b5527b5e12e017abdbe06731808063907e61ff6d2661ed471a607c276e5b05df7e0a70f631c376ee301f304f8346"
}