From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revocability with known trusted escrow services?
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:03:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1HhNGeSeD7TbsZtVZLxYKSJZtv8+8VnU6UFLA38tfs9Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMGNxUv7wkiUYZ2nZjOP0mEW7bgR0a+CXKyDPq38joU-fMMQ9Q@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1844 bytes --]
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab•com> 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.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2861 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-06 9:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-06 0:19 Peter Vessenes
2013-06-06 0:34 ` Alan Reiner
2013-06-06 1:06 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-06-06 8:31 ` Peter Todd
2013-06-06 9:01 ` Leszek Rychlewski
2013-06-06 16:31 ` Jorge Timón
2013-06-06 9:03 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
2013-06-06 18:18 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-06-06 22:22 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-06-07 5:46 ` Caleb James DeLisle
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=CANEZrP1HhNGeSeD7TbsZtVZLxYKSJZtv8+8VnU6UFLA38tfs9Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=peter@coinlab$(echo .)com \
/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