On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Ivan Brightly <ibrigh...@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ibrigh...@gmail.com');>> wrote:

> Yep - similarly: you live in a neighborhood with a local coffee store.
> Sure you could use a stolen credit card or a fake $5 bill, but it's not
> worth the risk of being caught for a $3 coffee. And on the other side, the
> store can deal with 1% of transactions getting reversed or having a fake
> bill so they don't change their procedures.

These analogies being brought are based on the goal of quick
payments, which is different from the goal of Bitcoin:
cryptographically sound, distributed consensus.

> Perfection is not necessary in all situations.

If you want zeroconf transactions, first realize that this goal currently
has no sound solution in Bitcoin and until it does, supporting it should
not be a part of the agenda. There are two paths going forward, not
independent of one another, that would achieve the goal of quick payments
for your coffee etc:
- Research/implement a solution that is consistent with the goal of Bitcoin
- Rely on a cosigning central authority

If you think the latter option is nasty, remember that people,
like corporations, can be nasty as well. Do not rely on the good faith of

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to