{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e \u003e So you're just arguing that a notary is different to a miner, without\n\u003e spelling out exactly why.\n\u003e\nI'm afraid I still don't understand why you think notaries would build long\nterm businesses but miners wouldn't, in this model.\n\nI think you are saying because notaries have identity, brand awareness and\nbecause they have big up front bonds, that means they will be trustworthy.\n\nWell, sure. It's the same model governments use and is why being a money\ntransmitter in the USA is so difficult: you need to put up large sums of\nmoney as collateral and have your fingerprints taken 48 times. *Then* you\ncan start advertising to get customers!\n\nThe reason mining is such a nice model is it doesn't have these sorts of\nrequirements.\n\n\u003e As notaries can be small operations ..... [snip] ...... (almost every\n\u003e large organization in the world have some unallocated funds somewhere).\n\u003e\nWhich is it? Are notaries small operations or large operations?\n\nI think exploring new consensus models with semi-trusted notaries is\ninteresting, but it's not Bitcoin.\n\n\u003e Depending on that which isn't guaranteed is baaaad, and breaking other\n\u003e people's assumptions is by itself NOT an attack if there never was a\n\u003e guarantee or even as little as an implicit understanding it is safe.\n\u003e\nPlease don't try and apply this logic in the real world :( Rephrased:\n\n\"*That's a nice house. I noticed it's made of wood. I'm going to start\nfires until it burns down, because there is no guarantee your house won't\nburn down in future and it's important you understand that wooden houses\naren't safe. Really I'm just doing you a favour*.\"\n\nDon't get me wrong. I'm all for what *you're* doing - please do continue to\nresearch and explore alternative trust configurations! This is helpful and\nuseful work. Perhaps we will find something that solves the burger problem\nin a way that satisfies everyone.\n\nI'm really not a fan of Peter's approach, which is \"hey let's try and cause\nas many problems as possible to try and prove a point, without having\ncreated any solutions\". Replace-by-fee-scorched-earth doesn't work and\nisn't a solution. Miners can easily cut payment fraudsters in on the stolen\nmoney, and as they'd need to distribute custom double-spending wallets to\nmake the scheme work it'd be very easy to do.\n\n\u003e Your also ssume people will expect the Bitcoin network to keep zero-conf\n\u003e safe forever and that Bitcoin valuation is tied to that. Given the options\n\u003e available and current state of things, I'm assuming that's wrong.\n\u003e\nWhy? You think ability to make payments in a few seconds is some irrelevant\ncuriousity?\n\nLet's put it this way. If BitPay's business model evaporates tomorrow,\nalong with all the merchants they support, do you think that'd have any\neffect on Bitcoin's value? If not, why not?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/7008132d/attachment.html\u003e"}