From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WwaDg-00056w-Hx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:57:20 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WwaDe-0003yf-HO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:57:20 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WwaDX-0008Pp-A8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:57:11 +0200 Received: from 93-35-10-132.ip52.fastwebnet.it ([93.35.10.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:57:11 +0200 Received: from lawrence by 93-35-10-132.ip52.fastwebnet.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:57:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Lawrence Nahum Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:56:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 93.35.10.132 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36) X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1WwaDe-0003yf-HO 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 16:57:20 -0000 Mike Hearn plan99.net> writes: > Actually Tom is running a page where he shows double spends detected by his node or relayed by mine (there are only two nodes in this little detection network currently), and it does show double spends that occur seconds, minutes or even days apart. I only meant that double spends minutes apart are possible and that by then the sole use of a monitor is too late even if it will tell you. > Regardless, whether that approach helps or not is off topic for this thread. Let's all hope it does and discuss the details in some other thread, or on the pull request. Fair enough. > Yes indeed, if you want to do high frequency trading then every millisecond counts and you probably don't want to rely on watching transactions propagate across the block chain. For inter-exchange traffic this BIP would probably be useful. I've been talking about the consumer case. That's quite different, granted. > No, I expect there to be many kinds of trades where dispute mediation is unnecessary, e.g. when I buy a drink at Starbucks or a burger at McDonalds the chances of me wanting to charge it back is basically zero. Same for sending between people who know each other, large corporate transactions where the threat of a lawsuit is more useful than mediation, etc. I wouldn't assume that if bitcoin alone (i.e. without third parties) can't be used for medium-high value purchases then it's useless. > But for transactions where third parties are needed for dispute mediation, yes, I'd expect there to be a handful of well known trusted names for the majority of such transactions, and then a long tail of specialists who only mediate e.g. purchases of rare Aztec artifacts or other things where a generic company might be easily fooled. Agreed.