From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Lawrence Nahum <lawrence@greenaddress•it>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:19:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0Euc1mPhRc9e41tU4zMDrWesvVyiBpAPq6M3m7K=aU=A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKrJrGOBSiY5V59eko6g796j3wh9V9ZLjPbyHeS5=zyX6j3Wdw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1680 bytes --]
Looking good! I think this is much better than the original draft. Agree
with Andreas that supports_instant is simply equal to
(supported_instant_providers.size() > 1) which makes it redundant.
Daniel is right that putting every possible provider in the Payment message
might not scale in a world where there are huge numbers of
instant-confirmation providers, but I'm hoping that we never have to scale
to that size, because if we did that'd rather imply that Bitcoin has become
useless for in-person payments without trusted third parties and avoiding
that is rather the whole point of the project :) So I'm OK with some
theoretical lack of scalability for now.
A more scalable approach would be for the user to send the name and
signature of their "instant provider" every time and the merchant just
chooses whether to ignore it or not, but as Lawrence points out, this is
incompatible with the provider charging extra fees for "instantness". But
should we care? I'm trying to imagine what the purchasing experience is
like with optional paid-for third party anti-double-spend protection.
Ultimately it's the merchant who cares about this, not me, so why would I
ever pay? It makes no sense for me to pay for double spend protection for
the merchant: after all, I'm honest. This is why it doesn't make sense for
me to pay miners fees either, it's the *receiver* who cares about
confirmations, not the sender.
So I wonder if a smarter design is that the user always submits the details
of their instantness provider and we just don't allow for optional
selection of instantness. I'm not sure that works, UX wise, so is having a
less scalable design to support it worthwhile?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2003 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-16 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-14 12:00 Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-14 12:57 ` Andreas Schildbach
2014-06-15 9:22 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-15 12:46 ` Andreas Schildbach
2014-06-15 14:09 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-18 12:09 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-18 13:25 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-18 15:59 ` Daniel Rice
2014-06-18 16:09 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-19 17:36 ` Daniel Rice
2014-06-25 14:01 ` sebastien requiem
2014-06-16 12:19 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
2014-06-16 12:25 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 15:09 ` Daniel Rice
2014-06-16 15:26 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-16 16:00 ` Daniel Rice
2014-06-16 16:07 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 15:41 ` Paul Goldstein
2014-06-16 15:48 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 16:30 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-16 16:45 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 16:56 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-16 17:01 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 17:16 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-16 18:02 ` Alex Kotenko
2014-06-16 18:09 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 20:29 ` Daniel Rice
2014-06-16 20:32 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 20:37 ` Daniel Rice
2014-06-16 20:46 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 20:53 ` Daniel Rice
2014-06-16 20:55 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 20:50 ` [Bitcoin-development] Fidelity bonds for decentralized instant confirmation guarantees Peter Todd
2014-06-16 21:02 ` [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension Daniel Rice
2014-06-16 20:32 ` Alex Kotenko
2014-06-16 17:44 ` Jorge Timón
2014-06-17 15:58 ` Isidor Zeuner
2014-06-18 1:39 ` Tom Harding
2014-06-17 15:58 ` Isidor Zeuner
2014-06-18 9:15 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-18 20:47 ` Natanael
2014-06-18 2:01 ` Tom Harding
2014-06-16 15:28 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-16 15:43 ` Mike Hearn
2014-06-16 17:05 ` Lawrence Nahum
2014-06-16 8:53 Daniel Rice
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CANEZrP0Euc1mPhRc9e41tU4zMDrWesvVyiBpAPq6M3m7K=aU=A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=lawrence@greenaddress$(echo .)it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox