Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1Z697h-0005FN-Dk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 03:07:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.176; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z697e-0000PJ-Uy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 03:07:13 +0000 Received: by pdbci14 with SMTP id ci14so43607574pdb.2 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:07:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.167.131 with SMTP id zo3mr37365354pbb.123.1434769625317; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o7sm12601565pdi.16.2015.06.19.20.07.03 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1312660D-E2F2-4CB0-B7E7-3268F0EB69E0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD5VDJRuKiq2NaPyoJdDVMPd+9YWtEr3pauS5ZNzxXXEig@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:07:02 -0700 Message-Id: <C8121F43-0A2A-4882-B98A-90AB77962550@gmail.com> References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <20150619154054.GA13498@savin.petertodd.org> <CAMK47c84w=2c9y8MKHTzFf05DmKXz74a=iFViA-oZ1uRDZCAWg@mail.gmail.com> <6716121.uS5ifrNBZv@crushinator> <5584B80A.7000403@petersson.at> <CAOG=w-u6fmpnojpQmrFEMRK56WDsfhZgm406C3tVax5hsX2sOA@mail.gmail.com> <CACq0ZD5VDJRuKiq2NaPyoJdDVMPd+9YWtEr3pauS5ZNzxXXEig@mail.gmail.com> To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z697e-0000PJ-Uy Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 03:07:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1312660D-E2F2-4CB0-B7E7-3268F0EB69E0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E0C07B8B-C29C-422B-B828-6755DA12F367" --Apple-Mail=_E0C07B8B-C29C-422B-B828-6755DA12F367 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It all comes down to managing risk. If you=E2=80=99ve got a decent risk = model with capped losses and safe recovery mechanisms=E2=80=A6and it=E2=80= =99s still profitable=E2=80=A6it=E2=80=99s fine. But most payment = processors and merchants right now probably don=E2=80=99t have = particularly good risk models and are making many dangerous = assumptions=E2=80=A6and probably would not be able to gracefully handle = very many risk scenarios. - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 19, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > > 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. >=20 > They don't need to be made cryptographically safe, they just have to = be safer than, for instance, credit card payments that can be charged = back. As long as it's reasonably good in practice, that's fine. >=20 >=20 > Aaron Voisine > co-founder and CEO > breadwallet.com <http://breadwallet.com/> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Mark Friedenbach = <mark@friedenbach.org <mailto:mark@friedenbach.org>> wrote: > 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. >=20 > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson = <andreas@petersson.at <mailto:andreas@petersson.at>> wrote: > I have some experience here. If you are seriously suggesting these > measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility > value. So it's a bad thing. >=20 > for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of > confirmations was always recommended practice. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net = <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development = <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development> >=20 >=20 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net = <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development = <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development> >=20 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --Apple-Mail=_E0C07B8B-C29C-422B-B828-6755DA12F367 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" = class=3D"">It all comes down to managing risk. If you=E2=80=99ve got a = decent risk model with capped losses and safe recovery mechanisms=E2=80=A6= and it=E2=80=99s still profitable=E2=80=A6it=E2=80=99s fine. But most = payment processors and merchants right now probably don=E2=80=99t have = particularly good risk models and are making many dangerous = assumptions=E2=80=A6and probably would not be able to gracefully handle = very many risk scenarios.<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D"">- Eric Lombrozo<br class=3D""><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote = type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On Jun 19, 2015, at 6:23 PM, = Aaron Voisine <<a href=3D"mailto:voisine@gmail.com" = class=3D"">voisine@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" = class=3D"">> <span style=3D"font-size:13px" class=3D"">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.</span><div class=3D""><span style=3D"font-size:13px" class=3D""><br = class=3D""></span></div><div class=3D"">They don't need to be made = cryptographically safe, they just have to be safer than, for instance, = credit card payments that can be charged back. As long as it's = reasonably good in practice, that's fine.</div></div><div = class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div= dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><br class=3D"">Aaron = Voisine</div><div class=3D"">co-founder and CEO<br class=3D""><a = href=3D"http://breadwallet.com/" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">breadwallet.com</a></div></div></div></div></div></div> <br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:09 = PM, Mark Friedenbach <span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a = href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">mark@friedenbach.org</a>></span> wrote:<br = class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 = .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr" = class=3D"">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.<br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br = class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5">On= Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson <span dir=3D"ltr" = class=3D""><<a href=3D"mailto:andreas@petersson.at" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">andreas@petersson.at</a>></span> wrote:<br = class=3D""></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0= 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div = class=3D""><div class=3D"h5">I have some experience here. If you are = seriously suggesting these<br class=3D""> measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.<br = class=3D""> <br class=3D""> In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a<br = class=3D""> similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much<br = class=3D""> lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill for a sandwich might turn out fake = later)<br class=3D""> and the fraud frequency is also much lower.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> 0-conf concerns were never a problem in practice. except for 2-way = atms<br class=3D""> i have never heard of a problem that was caused by double spends.<br = class=3D""> while adding these measures is generally positive, requiring them = means<br class=3D""> excluding 99.9% of the potential users. so you might as well not do = it.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility<br = class=3D""> value. So it's a bad thing.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of<br = class=3D""> confirmations was always recommended practice.<br class=3D""> <div class=3D""><div class=3D""><br class=3D""> Am 19.06.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Matt Whitlock:<br class=3D""> > Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla = Bitcoin<br class=3D""> > payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the<br = class=3D""> > irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried = several<br class=3D""> > blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a<br = class=3D""> > co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to = sign<br class=3D""> > a double-spend.<br class=3D""> <br class=3D""> </div></div><br class=3D""></div></div><span = class=3D"">---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------<br class=3D""> <br class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br = class=3D""> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br class=3D""> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" = target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br class=3D""> <a = href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" = rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t</a><br class=3D""> <br class=3D""></span></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div> <br = class=3D"">---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------<br class=3D""> <br class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br = class=3D""> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br class=3D""> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" = class=3D"">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br class=3D""> <a = href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" = rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" = class=3D"">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t</a><br class=3D""> <br class=3D""></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----<br class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br = class=3D"">Bitcoin-development mailing list<br class=3D""><a = href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" = class=3D"">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br = class=3D"">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t<br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br = class=3D""></div></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_E0C07B8B-C29C-422B-B828-6755DA12F367-- --Apple-Mail=_1312660D-E2F2-4CB0-B7E7-3268F0EB69E0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVhNjWAAoJEJNAI64YFENUDkoP/2Em2k2Yt60m3Djca2V68tyc y5PxIgr5F0KSGNu3mFsamM118K1fv+DNmva149QUDu3pB7EB2QUaJnNu57rF3Lpc DVdqDVG8Ny9Rbc2PR6sgp6Hr5FuttPTJfMQWHhzuHhNlVbglQ/uIbvEAxlajcdBX FT23llYev9/kSSJRFm5aY9NELNCxhh51eKEMAyAI6sLDpjv9NKsegrNPeleZYwnJ LT1UDVf3AIwuxcextiZjhzbn4mughZ4eMq34/6e9qoFY8yn7bUOzijtcGadn3t6n moWfEut46f59SPnuT18pgdZQ/nYeBExImwNjrs2t8WTT51yI0csTbWM51mDuZHD4 wIMa7fQCIMKNP1qvMT3foVPSDJOHccC9vsPMdKr+d64cYINxz/k2t9GGemcDHfto UkA41b75j29BZ/aff8EGTmPV4aHfXXiim6BOsYDa98RO+8AfRnaJJ3w2jouswuzX WWQcw4UjFcI4pSIDz89+e0N34CmGu1mBK8D9+Pi4K2yAoscDeSwKuq1XzTg27eSA YjlFRlpzl32EnDlQ9vkaK7ZRA7dB488M+k8VMY4TE9Pv5o1PovhJwWfdkd+ivEqw Yj+QXPalIPWaIxRaRr3mBkmW7GUQtCOMcgbkV7HMx17KQAR/Ostb+ivdVnZVgwSD x7pO6oazDwLtm45hM8j6 =U8Mk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1312660D-E2F2-4CB0-B7E7-3268F0EB69E0--