From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6MjJ-0004In-BE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 17:38:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.42; envelope-from=kompreni@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6MjI-0002hS-C9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 17:38:57 +0000 Received: by qgal13 with SMTP id l13so44318007qga.3 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:38:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.33.38 with SMTP id h38mr46327997qkh.44.1434821930964; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.37.50 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:38:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org> <201506200348.06564.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:38:50 -0700 Message-ID: From: Cameron Hejazi To: Ivan Brightly Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140656a82db6c0518f683ff X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) 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 (kompreni[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 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails X-Headers-End: 1Z6MjI-0002hS-C9 Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: [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 17:38:57 -0000 --001a1140656a82db6c0518f683ff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Ivan Brightly > wrote: > Yep - similarly: you live in a neighborhood with a local coffee store. > Sure you could use a stolen credit card or a fake $5 bill, but it's not > worth the risk of being caught for a $3 coffee. And on the other side, the > store can deal with 1% of transactions getting reversed or having a fake > bill so they don't change their procedures. > These analogies being brought are based on the goal of quick payments, which is different from the goal of Bitcoin: cryptographically sound, distributed consensus. > Perfection is not necessary in all situations. > If you want zeroconf transactions, first realize that this goal currently has no sound solution in Bitcoin and until it does, supporting it should not be a part of the agenda. There are two paths going forward, not independent of one another, that would achieve the goal of quick payments for your coffee etc: - Research/implement a solution that is consistent with the goal of Bitcoin - Rely on a cosigning central authority If you think the latter option is nasty, remember that people, like corporations, can be nasty as well. Do not rely on the good faith of people. Cameron --001a1140656a82db6c0518f683ff Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep - similarly: you live in a neighborhood with a local coffe= e store. Sure you could use a stolen credit card or a fake $5 bill, but it&= #39;s not worth the risk of being caught for a $3 coffee. And on the other = side, the store can deal with 1% of transactions getting reversed or having= a fake bill so they don't change their procedures.
<= div>=C2=A0
These analogies=C2=A0being brought=C2=A0are based on t= he=C2=A0goal of quick payments,=C2=A0which is different from=C2=A0the goal = of Bitcoin: cryptographically=C2=A0sound,=C2=A0distributed consensus.=C2=A0=

=C2=A0
Perfection is not necessary in all situations.
<= /blockquote>

If you want zeroconf transactions, first re= alize that this goal currently has no sound=C2=A0solution in Bitcoin=C2=A0a= nd until it does, supporting=C2=A0it should not be=C2=A0a=C2=A0part of the = agenda. There are two paths going forward, not independent of one another, = that would achieve the goal of quick payments for your coffee etc:
-=C2=A0Research/implement a solution that is consistent with the goal of = Bitcoin
-=C2=A0Rely on=C2=A0a=C2=A0cosigning central authority

If you think the latter option is nasty, remember th= at people, like=C2=A0corporations, can be nasty as well. Do not rely on the= good faith of people.

Cameron
--001a1140656a82db6c0518f683ff--