{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-20\n📝 Original message:It all comes down to managing risk. If you’ve got a decent risk model with capped losses and safe recovery mechanisms…and it’s still profitable…it’s fine. But most payment processors and merchants right now probably don’t have particularly good risk models and are making many dangerous assumptions…and probably would not be able to gracefully handle very many risk scenarios.\n\n- Eric Lombrozo\n\n\n\u003e On Jun 19, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Aaron Voisine \u003cvoisine at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides, for example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on single-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe.\n\u003e \n\u003e They don't need to be made cryptographically safe, they just have to be safer than, for instance, credit card payments that can be charged back. As long as it's reasonably good in practice, that's fine.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Aaron Voisine\n\u003e co-founder and CEO\n\u003e breadwallet.com \u003chttp://breadwallet.com/\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Mark Friedenbach \u003cmark at friedenbach.org \u003cmailto:mark at friedenbach.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides, for example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on single-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe.\n\u003e \n\u003e On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson \u003candreas at petersson.at \u003cmailto:andreas at petersson.at\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I have some experience here. If you are seriously suggesting these\n\u003e measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether.\n\u003e \n\u003e In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a\n\u003e similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much\n\u003e lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill for a sandwich might turn out fake later)\n\u003e and the fraud frequency is also much lower.\n\u003e \n\u003e 0-conf concerns were never a problem in practice. except for 2-way atms\n\u003e i have never heard of a problem that was caused by double spends.\n\u003e while adding these measures is generally positive, requiring them means\n\u003e excluding 99.9% of the potential users. so you might as well not do it.\n\u003e \n\u003e RBF as implemented by F2Pool just flat out lowers Bitcoins utility\n\u003e value. So it's a bad thing.\n\u003e \n\u003e for any online or automated system, waiting for a handful of\n\u003e confirmations was always recommended practice.\n\u003e \n\u003e Am 19.06.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Matt Whitlock:\n\u003e \u003e Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin\n\u003e \u003e payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the\n\u003e \u003e irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several\n\u003e \u003e blocks deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a\n\u003e \u003e co-signature from a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign\n\u003e \u003e a double-spend.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net \u003cmailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development \u003chttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net \u003cmailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development \u003chttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/21052728/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/21052728/attachment.sig\u003e"}