Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

bitundo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#51

Post by wmf »

tveita wrote: post #37
steveklabnik wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't really look like this is meant to make any money for the developer yet Incorrect. > the new fee you will need to pay is 10% of the undo amount, plus the original mining fee. Note: If you are sending a secret transaction, you must then double this fee http://www.bitundo.com/developer.html

If miners want to provide this service, can't they just resolve double-spends based on mining fee? It doesn't seem like it there needs to be a middle-man here.

That was my thought; this system sounds a lot more complex than replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent rules that have been discussed for a while.

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#52

Post by bitJericho »

josu wrote: post #12
hapless wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There never was any credibility behind an unconfirmed transaction.

I have bought cookies in Mexico with zero confirmations. So there was some credibility. At least with small transactions.

You're going to reverse a bitcoin transaction on some cookies you bought? That, sir, makes you a jerk.

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#53

Post by wcoenen »

eiliant wrote: post #42
jamoes wrote: post #7

Interesting product. It doesn't really look like this is meant to make any money for the developer yet (maybe the plan is to add fees to their mining pool at some point in the future?). I suspect the point is to drive policy so that companies and individuals don't trust transactions with zero confirmations, or at least start checking for double-spend attempts. The standard right now for many companies is to accept ze…

Won't that be a big problem for everyday transactions though, to have to wait 10 mins for a confirmation instead of immediately like swiping a credit card when say you go out to eat or go grocery shopping? Won't that then hurt the usefulness of bitcoin and adoption rate?

Bitcoin was never designed for instant confirmation. The sooner everyone involved realizes this, the better.

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#54

Post by [deleted] »

eiliant wrote: post #42
jamoes wrote: post #7

Interesting product. It doesn't really look like this is meant to make any money for the developer yet (maybe the plan is to add fees to their mining pool at some point in the future?). I suspect the point is to drive policy so that companies and individuals don't trust transactions with zero confirmations, or at least start checking for double-spend attempts. The standard right now for many companies is to accept ze…

Won't that be a big problem for everyday transactions though, to have to wait 10 mins for a confirmation instead of immediately like swiping a credit card when say you go out to eat or go grocery shopping? Won't that then hurt the usefulness of bitcoin and adoption rate?

[deleted]

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#55

Post by goblin89 »

wcoenen wrote: post #53
eiliant wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't that be a big problem for everyday transactions though, to have to wait 10 mins for a confirmation instead of immediately like swiping a credit card when say you go out to eat or go grocery shopping? Won't that then hurt the usefulness of bitcoin and adoption rate?

Bitcoin was never designed for instant confirmation. The sooner everyone involved realizes this, the better.

Perhaps there's a place and need for certain supporting infrastructure around Bitcoin—similar to what we have with bank cards. In the latter case payment doesn't necessarily happen immediately as you swipe the card (the transaction can be pending authorization for a few days afterwards).

Some service could provide instant payments with Bitcoin and handle chargebacks, disputes, credits, etc. I guess if Bitcoin is successful, the big players would go after that.

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#56

Post by bdcs »

mike_hearn wrote: post #44
nullc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> processors and merchants accepting bitcoin payments Citation needed. The existing behavior is very easy to rip off: You write two transactions, the one paying yourself, one paying the merchant. Simultaneously you hand a big miner the first while handing every other node you can reach the second. It's very likely that the first doesn't propagate at all, but you'll have a decent successrate at reversing. Blockchain.i…

Come on Gregory. You don't need to provide citations for reality. Just go and spend some Bitcoins into the economy, then tell me how many sellers required 6 confirmations. I don't remember the last time anyone required me to wait except for exchanges.

Thank you Gregory Maxwell and Mike Hearn for your comments! Your bitcoin thoughts (in general) are truly insightful! And, Mike, your forum "outreach" to help people understand bitcoin better is also to be commended. As a general PSA, I recommend to everybody interested in bitcoin to read the comments of mike_hearn in this thread; he (and the other core devs) spend a lot of time explaining non-intuitive aspects of bitcoin. PS. Mike, do you have a centralized source for your comments? Between G+, medium, bitcointalk, ad-hoc videos, etc. it's hard to keep track.

Gregory, my only data point for a 'merchant' accepting txns which have zero conf WITH widespread network propagation (say, >70%) is blockchain.info's now-defunct laundry service. 0conf w/o net. prop. was never accepted, 0conf w/ net. prop. was accepted for 'small' amounts, 1 conf for med amounts, 2 conf for large amounts, and 3 conf for extra large amounts. Anyway, you knew all this better than I did, but you asked so here you go. Thank you for explaining the greedy-miner strategy for safe confirmations. The problem I see with that, is the merchant needs a fast connection to "destroy" the transaction in time.

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#57

Post by josu »

bitJericho wrote: post #52
josu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have bought cookies in Mexico with zero confirmations. So there was some credibility. At least with small transactions.

You're going to reverse a bitcoin transaction on some cookies you bought? That, sir, makes you a jerk.

What? No, of course not. I'm just saying that, at least, for some transactions, there is some credibility.

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#58

Post by bitJericho »

josu wrote: post #57
bitJericho wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to reverse a bitcoin transaction on some cookies you bought? That, sir, makes you a jerk.

What? No, of course not. I'm just saying that, at least, for some transactions, there is some credibility.

Not for small cookie transactions. Who wants to be "that guy?"

Re: BitUndo – Double Spending as a service

#59

Post by sachingulaya »

mike_hearn wrote: post #44
nullc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> processors and merchants accepting bitcoin payments Citation needed. The existing behavior is very easy to rip off: You write two transactions, the one paying yourself, one paying the merchant. Simultaneously you hand a big miner the first while handing every other node you can reach the second. It's very likely that the first doesn't propagate at all, but you'll have a decent successrate at reversing. Blockchain.i…

Come on Gregory. You don't need to provide citations for reality. Just go and spend some Bitcoins into the economy, then tell me how many sellers required 6 confirmations. I don't remember the last time anyone required me to wait except for exchanges.

I required 2 confirmations for my ecommerce site only because it wouldn't cause a delay in shipping their order.

http://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time

12 minutes to one confirmation isn't terrible for the purchase of digital goods...but in person transactions would be limited.

Post reply on HN