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
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <voisine@gmail.com>) id 1Z67V0-0006fA-M7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 01:23:10 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.46; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qg0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-qg0-f46.google.com ([209.85.192.46])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z67Uy-0006R5-Re
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 01:23:10 +0000
Received: by qgeu36 with SMTP id u36so41776441qge.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.194.141 with SMTP id p135mr26314634qha.20.1434763383436;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-u6fmpnojpQmrFEMRK56WDsfhZgm406C3tVax5hsX2sOA@mail.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>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:23:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD5VDJRuKiq2NaPyoJdDVMPd+9YWtEr3pauS5ZNzxXXEig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114273eece7ce30518e8e163
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(voisine[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
X-Headers-End: 1Z67Uy-0006R5-Re
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 01:23:10 -0000
--001a114273eece7ce30518e8e163
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 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-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--001a114273eece7ce30518e8e163
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:13px">What retail needs=
is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides, for example), whic=
h enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on single-signer zeroconf=
transactions that can never be made safe.</span><div><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:13px"><br></span></div><div>They don't need to be made cryptographi=
cally safe, they just have to be safer than, for instance, credit card paym=
ents that can be charged back. As long as it's reasonably good in=C2=A0=
practice, that's fine.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=
=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div><br>Aaron Voisine</div><div>co-founder and CEO<br><a href=3D"=
http://breadwallet.com" target=3D"_blank">breadwallet.com</a></div></div></=
div></div></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Mark Friede=
nbach <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=
=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">What retail needs is escrowed microchannel h=
ubs (what lightning provides, for example), which enable untrusted instant =
payments. Not reliance on single-signer zeroconf transactions that can neve=
r be made safe.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote"><div><div class=3D"h5">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Pet=
ersson <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:andreas@petersson.at" target=
=3D"_blank">andreas@petersson.at</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5">I have some experience her=
e. If you are seriously suggesting these<br>
measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.<br>
<br>
In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a<br>
similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much<br>
lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill for a sandwich might turn out fake later)<br>
and the fraud frequency is also much lower.<br>
<br>
0-conf concerns were never a problem in practice. except for 2-way atms<br>
i have never heard of a problem that was caused by double spends.<br>
while adding these measures is generally positive, requiring them means<br>
excluding 99.9% of the potential users. so you might as well not do it.<br>
<br>
RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility<br>
value. So it's a bad thing.<br>
<br>
for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of<br>
confirmations was always recommended practice.<br>
<div><div><br>
Am 19.06.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Matt Whitlock:<br>
> Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin<=
br>
> payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the<br>
> irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several<br>
> blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a<br>
> co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign=
<br>
> a double-spend.<br>
<br>
</div></div><br></div></div><span class=3D"">------------------------------=
------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a114273eece7ce30518e8e163--
|
