From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WwZ4H-0007jA-8S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:43:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WwZ4G-0006pa-4T for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:43:33 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id eb12so5965790oac.15 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.143.37 with SMTP id sb5mr20605834oeb.38.1402933406549; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:43:26 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -Gb31c97h2A7uoSfvYYGQ1GDVmU Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Lawrence Nahum Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a81a0574eb804fbf5e39c X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WwZ4G-0006pa-4T Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension 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: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:43:33 -0000 --047d7b3a81a0574eb804fbf5e39c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I don't see more than a bunch of accepted payment methods anywhere I > ever been in my life, I don't see merchants trusting more than a handful of > third parties. > Sure. I buy this. Although the credit card market is a great example of what we *don't* want: a stagnant duopoly of trusted third parties who rampantly abuse their position. So I'd hope we see either (a) nobody really caring about this BIP because Bitcoin gives good enough double spend protection or (b) lots of anti-double-spend providers (hundreds seems fine). > Ultimately you care because the alternative is to wait. > No, I will never wait. Neither me nor the merchant wants to me to be pointlessly hanging around for an hour. The alternative is to pay by credit card or cash. Outside of experiments there is no such thing as a shop that only accepts only Bitcoin and will require me to wait for a block because I didn't use a TTP to guarantee anti-double spends. So this seems like a fundamental problem to me: having the ability to say, "here is a proof I won't double spend" is fine, but it doesn't achieve anything if the merchant would have sold me the goods in return for a normal Bitcoin tx anyway, which in practice they always will because this system starts out from zero users and would have to work upwards. I *especially* will never use this system if I have to pay for it - I'd much rather just put my money into a wallet that can't generate these proofs and pay the sticker price. Maybe what this BIP needs is an extra field that lets the merchant say, I will give you a discount of X satoshis if you give me a no-double-spends proof. In other words invert it: the sticker price is what normal Bitcoin transactions cost, and then your wallet shows you the regular BIP70 price minus the discount plus the third parties fee as what you finally pay. I compare it to the sticker price the merchant is asking and if it's lower I'm happy, and if it's higher my wallet would automatically avoid using the TTP because I don't want to ever pay more, only less. The market would then figure out if the fees the TTP charges are worth the lower losses due to double spending fraud. --047d7b3a81a0574eb804fbf5e39c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't see more than a bunc= h of accepted payment methods anywhere I
ever been in my life, I don't see merchants trusting more than a handfu= l of
third parties.

Sure. I buy this. Althou= gh the credit card market is a great example of what we don't=C2= =A0want: a stagnant duopoly of trusted third parties who rampantly abuse th= eir position. So I'd hope we see either (a) nobody really caring about = this BIP because Bitcoin gives good enough double spend protection or (b) l= ots of anti-double-spend providers (hundreds seems fine).
=C2=A0
Ultimately you care because the alternative is to wait.
=

No, I will never wait. Neither me no= r the merchant wants to me to be pointlessly hanging around for an hour. Th= e alternative is to pay by credit card or cash. Outside of experiments ther= e is no such thing as a shop that only accepts only Bitcoin and will requir= e me to wait for a block because I didn't use a TTP to guarantee anti-d= ouble spends.
=C2=A0
So this seems like a fundamental problem to me: h= aving the ability to say, "here is a proof I won't double spend&qu= ot; is fine, but it doesn't achieve anything if the merchant would have= sold me the goods in return for a normal Bitcoin tx anyway, which in pract= ice they always will because this system starts out from zero users and wou= ld have to work upwards. I especially=C2=A0will never use this syste= m if I have to pay for it - I'd much rather just put my money into a wa= llet that can't generate these proofs and pay the sticker price.

Maybe what this BIP needs is an extra field that lets t= he merchant say, I will give you a discount of X satoshis if you give me a = no-double-spends proof. In other words invert it: the sticker price is what= normal Bitcoin transactions cost, and then your wallet shows you the regul= ar BIP70 price minus the discount plus the third parties fee as what you fi= nally pay. I compare it to the sticker price the merchant is asking and if = it's lower I'm happy, and if it's higher my wallet would automa= tically avoid using the TTP because I don't want to ever pay more, only= less.

The market would then figure out if the fees the TTP ch= arges are worth the lower losses due to double spending fraud.
<= /div>
--047d7b3a81a0574eb804fbf5e39c--