public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 18:45:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3er1NVoAiVmROTxQ3TC80r7enKaHkWjOYTbKehf7qJjQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <loom.20140616T181739-326@post.gmane.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1870 bytes --]

>
> I read the comments on the PR. I mean no disrespect but this patch can't
> prevent double spends minutes apart and a solution is as good as it's
> weakest link.
>

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.

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.


> instant confirmation between exchanges can create huge arbitrage
> opportunities and as such
> liquidity.
>

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.


> What do you expect for e-commerce and escrow to happen? Don't you think the
> market will naturally converge to a handful of hubs that will helps with
> refunds and things like that?


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.

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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2543 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-16 16:46 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
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 [this message]
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=CANEZrP3er1NVoAiVmROTxQ3TC80r7enKaHkWjOYTbKehf7qJjQ@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