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 ) 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 ; 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 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:07:02 -0700 Message-Id: References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <20150619154054.GA13498@savin.petertodd.org> <6716121.uS5ifrNBZv@crushinator> <5584B80A.7000403@petersson.at> To: Aaron Voisine 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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 > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Mark Friedenbach = > 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 = > 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 = > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development = >=20 >=20 >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net = > 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 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.

- Eric Lombrozo


On Jun 19, 2015, at 6:23 PM, = Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> 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.

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.


Aaron = Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:09 = PM, Mark Friedenbach <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.

On= Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at> wrote:
I have some experience here. If you are = seriously suggesting these
measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.

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.

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.

RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility
value. So it's a bad thing.

for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of
confirmations was always recommended practice.

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.


---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t



---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t


= --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t

= --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--