From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UkW6Q-0006KY-2P for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:03:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.44; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UkW6O-0005kd-Tl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:03:26 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n12so1998820oag.31 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:03:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.215.133 with SMTP id oi5mr181934obc.83.1370509399436; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.9.1 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 02:03:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:03:19 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kLP4yUpCrwPqItWirFFmjlaVljE Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Vessenes Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25434ea8ca704de789531 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: 1UkW6O-0005kd-Tl Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revocability with known trusted escrow services? 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: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:03:26 -0000 --001a11c25434ea8ca704de789531 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Peter Vessenes wrote: > So, this > http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/the-last-straw-for-bitcoin-1059608-1.html?pg=1 article got posted today, noting that FinCEN thinks irrevocable payments > are money laundering tools. > That's not how I read it, I don't see how one could argue that irreversible transactions are a money laundering tool. Credit card transactions aren't completely reversible either, you have to either claim that the card was stolen or that the merchant didn't deliver. If you charge back routinely, then the card companies are supposed to crack down on you. Though I don't know if that really happens. I think we should expect the head of FinCEN to argue that more or less anything can be seen as money laundering. She directly and personally profits from expansion of the notion of money laundering. That doesn't mean other people have to agree. > At any rate, it got me thinking, can we layer on revocability somehow > without any protocol change, as an opt-in? > I think we need 2-of-3 dispute mediation and have thought that for a long time, indeed, Satoshi's paper says so: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation It doesn't require any core protocol changes but it does require deployment of the payment protocol first, as that's the foundation on which we can add lots of other useful features like that. And then it needs a whole lot of work to define how you open a dispute from your wallet, how you find mutually agreeable mediators, etc. Having reversible payments in which one of the trading parties gets to decide whether to reverse seems pointless to me. If the buyer decides it's simply equivalent to post pay, and if the seller decides then it's just a refund, which the payment protocol already supports. --001a11c25434ea8ca704de789531 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Peter Vessenes <peter@c= oinlab.com> wrote:
So, this http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/the-last-straw-for-bitc= oin-1059608-1.html?pg=3D1 =C2=A0article got posted today, noting that F= inCEN thinks irrevocable payments are money laundering tools.=C2=A0

That's not how I read it, I don&= #39;t see how one could argue that irreversible transactions are a money la= undering tool. Credit card transactions aren't completely reversible ei= ther, you have to either claim that the card was stolen or that the merchan= t didn't deliver. If you charge back routinely, then the card companies= are supposed to crack down on you. Though I don't know if that really = happens.

I think we should expect the head of FinCEN= to argue that more or less anything can be seen as money laundering. She d= irectly and personally profits from expansion of the notion of money launde= ring. That doesn't mean other people have to agree.
=C2=A0
At any rate, it got= me thinking, can we layer on revocability somehow without any protocol cha= nge, as an opt-in?

I think we need 2-of-3 d= ispute mediation and have thought that for a long time, indeed, Satoshi'= ;s paper says so:


It doesn't require any core proto= col changes but it does require deployment of the payment protocol first, a= s that's the foundation on which we can add lots of other useful featur= es like that. And then it needs a whole lot of work to define how you open = a dispute from your wallet, how you find mutually agreeable mediators, etc.= Having reversible payments in which one of the trading parties gets to dec= ide whether to reverse seems pointless to me. If the buyer decides it's= simply equivalent to post pay, and if the seller decides then it's jus= t a refund, which the payment protocol already supports.
--001a11c25434ea8ca704de789531--