Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
Supporting it in the protocol is easy. Building such a thing: that's hard. Decentralised automated reputation systems are complex and subtle. Bitcoin is valuable as a protocol because it is truly decentralized. The complexity involved in building this system was expansive, but I think we can all agree it was worth the trouble. With this particular topic of instant transactions it seems we have to be very careful about pushing Bitcoin in a centralized direction for the sake of a simple quick solution. Building an automated system to solve the instant transaction problem will be difficult, but also well worth the effort, and exactly like you're saying Mike, I just want to make sure the door is left open protocol wise for a robust solution in the future. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: I think that's true if you assume that the instant provider list is based on a by hand created list of accepted instant providers. That's how VISA works now and that's why I was asking for an approach where the trusted_instant_providers list is scalable because that seems very dangerous. Supporting it in the protocol is easy. Building such a thing: that's hard. Decentralised automated reputation systems are complex and subtle. I don't feel strongly about whether the field should be optional or repeated, 100% of implementations in the forseeable future would just look at the first item and ignore the rest. But if later someone did crack this problem it would lead to a simple upgrade path. So perhaps you're right and the protobuf should allow multiple signatures. It means a new sub-message to wrap the pki_type, pki_data and signature fields into one, and then making that repeated. Up to Lawrence. -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
Jumping in on this conversation because I've been doing research in this area. Using a list of trusted providers in the payment details will be very limiting and not scalable. I understand the reason for wanting the supports_instant field, but I think that's a bad idea because the list could literally be a million providers. Secondly, some merchants already support instant transactions without any trust signature, so they should also be able to advertise that as well. I also don't believe that trusted or not trusted is a valid on and off switch. For example, I might trust an instant provider for a 1 btc transaction, but not 1,000,000 btc. Trust is all about the risk involved. We can definitely learn from the current financial system in this realm. I 100% agree with the In Payment Message portion of the BIP extension. Here's how I think this will practically shake out in an automated way: Anyone can become an instant provider, but nobody will trust them at first. As that particular instant provider processes more and more transactions without any double spends, they essentially build up trust. Based on the past history of a particular instant provider a risk factor could be calculated for a given transaction. This would also factor in the size of the transaction. It would be very similar to a credit file showing the past history of that particular instant provider based on all the transactions they signed. Andreas Schildbach andreas at schildbach.de writes: Just a quick comment: The supports_instant field seems redundant to me. First, as per your spec, you can derive it from trusted_instant_providers. And second, why do you need it at all? Protobuf is designed so it will simply ignore fields you don't know. So you can just send the instant_* fields in the Payment message without harm. Agreed, supports_instant is redundant and can/should/will go. trusted_instant_providers on the other hand I think is needed. Sometimes the providers will charge fees for instant. While the software can ignore the fields, users may not want to pay for instant when the merchant may not accept it or care (even if it would not break the protocol it would still be a waste of fees) Does it make sense? Not all transactions from GreenAddress provide double spend protection, there are additional checks on prevout that are normally not done when spending normally, etc -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
If you're hoping the instant providers list won't need to scale then you're essentially saying that we need a solution to the double spend problem. That is a good point. Double spends are one of the biggest issues remaining in the protocol. I've seen so many people talk about bad experiences trying to spend Bitcoin at a restaurant and waiting an hour for confirmations. This entire BIP extension is a band aid for double spends. If double spends are not resolved, there will be a million instant providers in the long run and if double spends are resolved then this BIP extension is completely unnecessary. Is solving doublespends off the table? What if we solved doublespends like this: If a node receives 2 transactions that use the same input, they can put both of them into the new block as a proof of double spend, but the bitcoins are not sent to the outputs of either transactions. They are instead treated like a fee and given to the block solver node. This gives miners the needed incentive and tools to end doublespends instead of being forced to favor one transaction over the other. I will write up a BIP if this seems like a practical approach. On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Looking good! I think this is much better than the original draft. Agree with Andreas that supports_instant is simply equal to (supported_instant_providers.size() 1) which makes it redundant. Daniel is right that putting every possible provider in the Payment message might not scale in a world where there are huge numbers of instant-confirmation providers, but I'm hoping that we never have to scale to that size, because if we did that'd rather imply that Bitcoin has become useless for in-person payments without trusted third parties and avoiding that is rather the whole point of the project :) So I'm OK with some theoretical lack of scalability for now. A more scalable approach would be for the user to send the name and signature of their instant provider every time and the merchant just chooses whether to ignore it or not, but as Lawrence points out, this is incompatible with the provider charging extra fees for instantness. But should we care? I'm trying to imagine what the purchasing experience is like with optional paid-for third party anti-double-spend protection. Ultimately it's the merchant who cares about this, not me, so why would I ever pay? It makes no sense for me to pay for double spend protection for the merchant: after all, I'm honest. This is why it doesn't make sense for me to pay miners fees either, it's the *receiver* who cares about confirmations, not the sender. So I wonder if a smarter design is that the user always submits the details of their instantness provider and we just don't allow for optional selection of instantness. I'm not sure that works, UX wise, so is having a less scalable design to support it worthwhile? -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
Any reason you think people will spread trust instead of consolidating of a bunch of instant transaction providers when time is critical? Maybe you're right, but if you are, that's a huge reason not to implement this. We should encourage proliferation of instant providers otherwise we start becoming VISA all over again. That's a future for Bitcoin I'm not excited about: Use one of these 4 companies, or you need to wait an impractical amount of time before your transaction will go through. Come to think of it, is the payment protocol really the place to put this instant provider signature or should it be in the actual Bitcoin transaction? If we don't believe there is a valid practical solution to doublespends (some people have already emailed me critical feedback on my proposal) then we absolutely need a trust network, but we would also want it to be part of the public ledger for everyone to see. On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Lawrence Nahum lawre...@greenaddress.it wrote: Daniel Rice drice at greenmangosystems.com writes: If double spends are not resolved, there will be a million instant providers in the long run and if double spends are resolved then this BIP extension is completely unnecessary. I am not sure if double spends can be resolved, at the moment they are not and I highly doubt you will see millions instant providers just like I don't see millions Certificate Authorities and I don't see Million Credit Card networks. Any reason you think people will spread trust instead of consolidating of a bunch of instant transaction providers when time is critical? -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
I'm trying to think through how to encourage the maximum number of instant signature providers and avoid the VISA monopoly. Ideal case would be that people can even be their own instant provider. What if the protocol allowed multiple instant signatures on a transaction? Would it encourage more instant providers? For example, a new instant provider could bootstrap their own trust by paying an already trusted instant provider to co-sign the same transaction. This would be useful in the case that a new company tries to release a new wallet once the trust ring is already established. Nobody will use that wallet because it does not have the trusted history to do instant transactions, but if they can pay a small amount per transaction to a third party to cosign, they can build trust in their own signature till they can eventually have enough trust on their own. This could be how an individual user could grow trust in their own instant signature as well. On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: I think many of us feel it'd be better if this kind of thing were not needed at all, however, the best way to ensure it doesn't end up being used is to write code, not to try and block alternative approaches. If Bitcoin is robust the market should sort it out. If it's robust for some transactions and not others, that makes for a fun project for a future generation of hackers to sort out. OK, enough philosophy - let's try and keep this thread just for discussion of the BIP itself from now on. If you'd like to continue debating the Future of Bitcoin please change the subject line and break it out into a new thread. -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
True, that would work, but still how are you going to bootstrap the trust? TREZOR is well known, but in a future where there could be 100 different companies trying to release a similar product to TREZOR it seems like one company could corner the market by being the only one that is an accepted instant provider at most vendors. It seems to encourage monopoly unless there is a standard way to bootstrap trust in your signature. On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Daniel Rice dr...@greenmangosystems.com wrote: I'm trying to think through how to encourage the maximum number of instant signature providers and avoid the VISA monopoly. Ideal case would be that people can even be their own instant provider. A provider does not have to be an interactive third party. One reason I suggested using X.509 is so secure hardware devices like the TREZOR could also be instant providers. The hardware would be tamperproof and assert using a secret key embedded in it that the tx came from a genuine, unflashed TREZOR. The the server can know the device won't double spend. In this way you have decentralised anti-double spending. Of course, it's an old solution. MintChip sort of worked a bit like this. -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension
Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: A more scalable approach would be for the user to send the name and signature of their instant provider every time and the merchant just chooses whether to ignore it or not, but as Lawrence points out, this is incompatible with the provider charging extra fees for instantness. But should we care? I'm trying to imagine what the purchasing experience is like with optional paid-for third party anti-double-spend protection. Ultimately it's the merchant who cares about this, not me, so why would I ever pay? Lawrence Nahum lawre...@greenaddress.it wrote: I think you are wrong here. Just because up to date credit cards charged the merchant which in turn charged you and the ordinary cash payer doesn't mean a newer and better system can't be transparent from day one. I don't think a whitelist of trust is a practical approach because you are going to want to have varying levels of trust in different instant providers. This would be based on how large their past transaction volume has been. For that reason maybe another approach is an additional negotiation message between the merchant and wallet. Merchant sends payment details - wallet responds with their instant information requesting if an instant transaction will be accepted for this transaction. Merchant weighs the risk based on historical data about this particular instant provider and the amount of the requested transaction - Merchant responds yes or no. That approach avoids the scaling issue, but also allows for Lawrence's use case of charging the user a fee only in the case where the instant transaction is supported. On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Daniel Rice dr...@greenmangosystems.com wrote: I'm trying to think through how to encourage the maximum number of instant signature providers and avoid the VISA monopoly. Ideal case would be that people can even be their own instant provider. What if the protocol allowed multiple instant signatures on a transaction? Would it encourage more instant providers? For example, a new instant provider could bootstrap their own trust by paying an already trusted instant provider to co-sign the same transaction. This would be useful in the case that a new company tries to release a new wallet once the trust ring is already established. Nobody will use that wallet because it does not have the trusted history to do instant transactions, but if they can pay a small amount per transaction to a third party to cosign, they can build trust in their own signature till they can eventually have enough trust on their own. This could be how an individual user could grow trust in their own instant signature as well. On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: I think many of us feel it'd be better if this kind of thing were not needed at all, however, the best way to ensure it doesn't end up being used is to write code, not to try and block alternative approaches. If Bitcoin is robust the market should sort it out. If it's robust for some transactions and not others, that makes for a fun project for a future generation of hackers to sort out. OK, enough philosophy - let's try and keep this thread just for discussion of the BIP itself from now on. If you'd like to continue debating the Future of Bitcoin please change the subject line and break it out into a new thread. -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
