1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UZdlb-0007Gl-8a
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 May 2013 09:00:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UZdla-00006H-AM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 May 2013 09:00:59 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id g12so318790oah.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 07 May 2013 02:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.226.136 with SMTP id rs8mr301997obc.50.1367917252988;
Tue, 07 May 2013 02:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.167.169 with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 02:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130506171943.GA22505@petertodd.org>
References: <CANEZrP1YFCLmasOrdxdKDP1=x8nKuy06kGRqZwpnmnhe3-AroA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506161216.GA5193@petertodd.org>
<CA+8xBpfdY7GsQiyrHuOG-MqXon0RGShpg2Yv-KeAXQ-503kAsA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506163732.GB5193@petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2WqXZVRJp6ag=RC4mSkt+a6qTYYpvE=DW_0Rdr=_BBHA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506171943.GA22505@petertodd.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 11:00:52 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ey4yF3T4hh18igfHK6r4uY5U-zs
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2TTcBJX86T+aRULDb7h9=MmoQa5U4cW0Z5ka8QAe_6Jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
X-Headers-End: 1UZdla-00006H-AM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Discovery/addr packets (was: Service bits
for pruned nodes)
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: Tue, 07 May 2013 09:00:59 -0000
> 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.
|
