Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-25 Thread sebastien requiem
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lawrence Nahum lawre...@greenaddress.it wrote: [snip] Allow me to recap BIP changes in discussion: - making some changes to allow merchants to offer discounts in case of instant ? - allowing multiple signatures ? Did I miss anything? Thoughts on the above

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-19 Thread Daniel Rice
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-18 Thread Mike Hearn
Please, let's talk about other anti-double spend things on a separate thread. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Isidor Zeuner cryptocurrenc...@quidecco.de wrote: What prevents the following steps from happening: I linked to Satoshi's post on this earlier, he explains why it works there,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-18 Thread Lawrence Nahum
Andreas Schildbach andreas at schildbach.de writes: What is the use of the Transactions message? Note the Payment message already contains a transactions field that could be signed. Can you briefly describe the whole flow of messages on an example, including the BIP70 messages? Updated the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-18 Thread Mike Hearn
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.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-18 Thread Natanael
Den 17 jun 2014 17:59 skrev Isidor Zeuner cryptocurrenc...@quidecco.de: quote: Mike Hearn, why don't we just have all nodes report attempted double spends through the node network. No need to involve the miners at all really, or do your suggestion but also report the double spend attempt.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-17 Thread Isidor Zeuner
quote: On 6/16/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then they (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay GreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product Lawrence, let's

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-17 Thread Isidor Zeuner
quote: Mike Hearn, why don't we just have all nodes report attempted double spends through the node network. No need to involve the miners at all really, or do your suggestion but also report the double spend attempt. By waiting maybe 10-60 seconds (instead of 10 minutes for first conf),

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-17 Thread Tom Harding
On 6/16/2014 8:09 AM, Daniel Rice wrote: 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-17 Thread Tom Harding
On 6/16/2014 8:48 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: In practice of course this is something payment processors like Bitpay and Coinbase will think about. Individual cafes etc who are just using mobile wallets won't be able to deal with this complexity: if we can't make native Bitcoin work well enough

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Rice
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Rice
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Lawrence Nahum
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Lawrence Nahum
Mike Hearn mike at plan99.net writes: [snip] 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
I don't see more than a bunch of accepted payment methods anywhere I ever been in my life, I don't see merchants trusting more than a handful of third parties. Sure. I buy this. Although the credit card market is a great example of what we *don't* want: a stagnant duopoly of trusted third

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
Mike Hearn, why don't we just have all nodes report attempted double spends through the node network. Please see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3883 which implements this exact scheme. It can solve some kinds of double spends (probably), but others - like ones done by corrupt miners

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Rice
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
Come to think of it, is the payment protocol really the place to put this instant provider signature Yes it's the right place. The original attempt at this concept was in fact called *green addresses* and the idea was you could identify a spend from a trusted wallet by checking which keys

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
I read the comments on the PR. I mean no disrespect but this patch can't prevent double spends minutes apart and a solution is as good as it's weakest link. Actually Tom is running a page where he shows double spends detected by his node or relayed by mine (there are only two nodes in this

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Lawrence Nahum
Mike Hearn mike at plan99.net writes: Sure. I buy this. Although the credit card market is a great example of what we don't want: a stagnant duopoly of trusted third parties who rampantly abuse their position. So I'd hope we see either (a) nobody really caring about this BIP because Bitcoin

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Lawrence Nahum
Mike Hearn mike at plan99.net writes: As long as miners stick to Satoshi's first seen rule, which is the default, it's useful: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819 (this is the famous snack machine thread from 2010) If they decide to change to something

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Alex Kotenko
Hi Lawrence/All I'm afraid with this BIP for TTP of instant transactions we will end up in VISA world again. As I see it - it's not about if the TTPs will centralize, it's only when. Simply because if economy of scales makes growth profitable and coming into this market is at least a little

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Jorge Timón
On 6/16/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then they (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay GreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product Lawrence, let's hope they

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Rice
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Rice
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Daniel Rice dr...@greenmangosystems.com wrote: 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
Yes that's true. Though it's off topic, check out http://www.certificate-transparency.org/ it's a project to force CA's to publish all certs they make publicly. -- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Rice
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-15 Thread Lawrence Nahum
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-15 Thread Andreas Schildbach
Yes I meant only the supports_instant is not needed. trusted_instant_providers makes sense to me. Generally I like the simplicity of this BIP. Still, I have more questions: What is the use of the Transactions message? Note the Payment message already contains a transactions field that could be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-15 Thread Lawrence Nahum
Andreas Schildbach andreas at schildbach.de writes: Generally I like the simplicity of this BIP. Still, I have more questions: What is the use of the Transactions message? Note the Payment message already contains a transactions field that could be signed. Transactions message sole

[Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-14 Thread Lawrence Nahum
Hello, I had the pleasure to meet some of you in Amsterdam and/or to speak on #bitcoin-dev but this is actually my first message to the mailing list - I feel a bit clumsy so apologies in advance if I make any mistake :) Quick introduction/background: my name is Lawrence Nahum and I'm the founder

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-14 Thread Andreas Schildbach
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