Greedy developers want to call off Bitcoin Mass adoption - long term down trend?

[00null]

To all those that believe that in the near future you will be able to pay for your Latte at Starbucks using Bitcoins.
Up to now it would be safe for, say, Starbucks to accept a 0 confirmation transaction for your Latte. It is almost impossible and totally uneconomical to double spend those 0.05 BTC.
Some Bitcoin developers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199947.0 have developed a patch that not only makes transactions reversible but actually brings double spends to the masses. There goes the Starbuck dream. Everyone will be able to double spend or even cancel those 0.05 BTC transactions with a click of a button.
I don't know nothing about the probability that Gavin will include such a patch, but it would be devastating for Bitcoins future.
My take: the force behind this patch is the banking cartel and greedy Bitcoin developers fail to notice this trap. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179612.0
Once investors and merchants realize those negative implication for the future of Bitcoin it could lead to a long term down trend.

[1715329685]

1715329685

[1715329685]

1715329685

[1715329685]

1715329685

[baddesttrader]

just sold ALL BTC on this news I was really a-scared for a sec tyvm for the tip

Bears spreadin fud...

[ElectricMucus]

Innovation - the nemesis of all pigish Bitcoin investors.

[00null]

just sold ALL BTC on this news I was really a-scared for a sec tyvm for the tip

Bears spreadin fud...

FUD? I read this on the Bitcoin developer mailing list and I thought I should share it with you guys.

[cypherdoc]

it is FUD.

i just read the thread.  what someone is proposing is to try and improve the system that currently can strand a tx from too little fees, ie, an unconfirmed tx.

none of the proposals discussed allow a double spend.  they talk about replacing a stranded tx with a higher fee to encourage propagation.

[kjj]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Despite some delusions to the contrary, bitcoin can not be made suitable for instant transactions.  Other services are necessary to handle the risks that are inherent in such transactions.

[Crypt_Current]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Like I'm sayin'.  Bitcoin HAS performed VERY well as a store of wealth / monetary backbone network.  And we have LTC, which transfers pretty quickly.  OH NOES BUT WE CAN'T USE BOTH  ::: cry :::

[chsados]

To all those that believe that in the near future you will be able to pay for your Latte at Starbucks using Bitcoins.

fail.....

Gyft and BitPay Open 50,000 Retail Locations to Bitcoins
http://uptweet.com/viewStory?id=1253

[00null]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte.

Despite some delusions to the contrary, bitcoin can not be made suitable for instant transactions. 

It cannot be made, because it already is. Granted, it will never be possible to buy a car with a zero-conf tx. But for everything below $10 a zero-conf tx is perfect. At least as long as you cannot reverse it by adding some $0.001 fee.

Other services are necessary to handle the risks that are inherent in such transactions.

That is what I suspect. Paypal/banks sponsor that change. Now they can claim that while waiting 10 minutes (or sometimes half an hour) your coffee gets cold. Better convert your Bitcoins to something else before spending it. Maybe we could store the value on little pieces of paper. Lets call it dollar. After some time when almost everyone accepts it we can get rid of that clumsy Bitcoin thing and only use this paper money. </sarcasm>

[SgtSpike]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte.

Except... this patch exists.  Which means it is quite possible for people to do it.

Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe.

I am bullish on this news.  It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening.

[00null]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte.

Except... this patch exists.  Which means it is quite possible for people to do it.

I write a patch to send me all your coins and still as long as you don't install it this patch will do nothing.

Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe.

The "benefit" is that it disables possible use cases. The victims would be be merchant like Starbucks that get robbed $3 that way, while millions of ppl could regular pay with Bitcoins at the same time. You are one of those guys that try to outlaw cash, because it can be used for illegal thing. Once everything works electronically it can be traced and monitored and everyone is safe. Except now no one is. Same benefit as from this patch.

I am bullish on this news.  It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening.

I repeat, have you ever tried this? Basically impossible. So bullish on making Bitcoin worse? Permabull in denial

[SgtSpike]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte.

Except... this patch exists.  Which means it is quite possible for people to do it.

I write a patch to send me all your coins and still as long as you don't install it this patch will do nothing.

Huh?  In that case, the victim would have to install that patch in order to be victimized.  In this case with the 0-conf security hole, no one has to install a patch to be victimized, but an attacker could certainly install the patch to make it easier for him to make people victims.  Those are polar opposites.

Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe.

The "benefit" is that it disables possible use cases. The victims would be be merchant like Starbucks that get robbed $3 that way, while millions of ppl could regular pay with Bitcoins at the same time. You are one of those guys that try to outlaw cash, because it can be used for illegal thing. Once everything works electronically it can be traced and monitored and everyone is safe. Except now no one is. Same benefit as from this patch.

It disables possible use cases that shouldn't have been use cases at all.  Starbucks shouldn't be getting robbed of $3 this way, because they shouldn't be accepting 0-conf transactions anyway.  They are inherently unsafe.  Gavin's patch shows exactly why they are inherently unsafe - anyone could code such a patch and use it in their client.

Saying that 0-conf transactions can be secure is like not having locks on your house and pretending that it is perfectly safe to leave for the weekend.  "Well, as long as someone doesn't spend the time to figure out my house is unlocked, it'll be fine - nothing will be stolen."  While that may be true, more and more criminals will decide to check houses to see if they are locked if they know that people are leaving their houses unlocked.  Similarly, while 0-conf transactions may be mostly safe today, you can guarantee that patches to double-spend coins would be very prevalent in the future, just like aimbots are prevalent in FPS games.  Gavin is preventing a big problem before it starts by making it a really bad idea to accept 0-conf transactions and prevent merchants from relying on 0-conf transactions.

I am bullish on this news.  It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening.

I repeat, have you ever tried this? Basically impossible. So bullish on making Bitcoin worse? Permabull in denial

Not impossible at all.  All I would have to do is patch Gavin's pull request into my own Bitcoin-QT, and viola!  Double-spending powers!  You can say that he shouldn't have done that, but then, what would stop anyone else from making a similar patch and only sharing it among the criminal underground?

[00null]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte.

Except... this patch exists.  Which means it is quite possible for people to do it.

I write a patch to send me all your coins and still as long as you don't install it this patch will do nothing.

Huh?  In that case, the victim would have to install that patch in order to be victimized.  In this case with the 0-conf security hole, no one has to install a patch to be victimized, but an attacker could certainly install the patch to make it easier for him to make people victims.  Those are polar opposites.

Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe.

The "benefit" is that it disables possible use cases. The victims would be be merchant like Starbucks that get robbed $3 that way, while millions of ppl could regular pay with Bitcoins at the same time. You are one of those guys that try to outlaw cash, because it can be used for illegal thing. Once everything works electronically it can be traced and monitored and everyone is safe. Except now no one is. Same benefit as from this patch.

It disables possible use cases that shouldn't have been use cases at all.  Starbucks shouldn't be getting robbed of $3 this way, because they shouldn't be accepting 0-conf transactions anyway.  They are inherently unsafe.  Gavin's patch shows exactly why they are inherently unsafe - anyone could code such a patch and use it in their client.

Saying that 0-conf transactions can be secure is like not having locks on your house and pretending that it is perfectly safe to leave for the weekend.  "Well, as long as someone doesn't spend the time to figure out my house is unlocked, it'll be fine - nothing will be stolen."  While that may be true, more and more criminals will decide to check houses to see if they are locked if they know that people are leaving their houses unlocked.  Similarly, while 0-conf transactions may be mostly safe today, you can guarantee that patches to double-spend coins would be very prevalent in the future, just like aimbots are prevalent in FPS games.  Gavin is preventing a big problem before it starts by making it a really bad idea to accept 0-conf transactions and prevent merchants from relying on 0-conf transactions.

I am bullish on this news.  It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening.

I repeat, have you ever tried this? Basically impossible. So bullish on making Bitcoin worse? Permabull in denial

Not impossible at all.  All I would have to do is patch Gavin's pull request into my own Bitcoin-QT, and viola!  Double-spending powers!  You can say that he shouldn't have done that, but then, what would stop anyone else from making a similar patch and only sharing it among the criminal underground?

The miner has to install this patch. And everyone else on the Bitcoin network. No one cares about your client. No one would propagate your double spend. This patch is necessary to propagate the double spends. At the moment the Bitcoin network prohibits double spends. This patch enables it. A huge "benefit"...

[wonkytonky]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

this.

wouldn't thrust a 0 confirmation EVER! that's why bitcoin in it's current state is not ready for fast transactions.

(it can be used as a fast transaction if you thrust the guy sending it..  like a regular customer in your bar or something)

to me this forum part is just FUD  .. we all know coins are not going to crash much further down so they all want them cheap coins .. the speculation forum is not here to help you
it's here to manipulate you  

maybe i'm manipulating other people because i'm bullish

[00null]

Gavin seems to be opposed to this double spend enabling patch: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199947.msg2090345#msg2090345
Thank god, or better, thank you Gavin!
Back to bullish mode

[fisheater]

lol, what a mess

[melvster]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Despite some delusions to the contrary, bitcoin can not be made suitable for instant transactions.  Other services are necessary to handle the risks that are inherent in such transactions.

zero conf is a perfectly legitimate use case so long as the two parites have a degree of trust

in fact the MAJORITY of bitcoin transactions either already are or should be zero conf

consider mount gox or seals with clubs, not every transactions goes through the block chain, the server in the middle is trusted not to double spend until a withdrawl is made

[SgtSpike]

The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form.  Now everyone has to accept reality.

Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte.

Except... this patch exists.  Which means it is quite possible for people to do it.

I write a patch to send me all your coins and still as long as you don't install it this patch will do nothing.

Huh?  In that case, the victim would have to install that patch in order to be victimized.  In this case with the 0-conf security hole, no one has to install a patch to be victimized, but an attacker could certainly install the patch to make it easier for him to make people victims.  Those are polar opposites.

Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe.

The "benefit" is that it disables possible use cases. The victims would be be merchant like Starbucks that get robbed $3 that way, while millions of ppl could regular pay with Bitcoins at the same time. You are one of those guys that try to outlaw cash, because it can be used for illegal thing. Once everything works electronically it can be traced and monitored and everyone is safe. Except now no one is. Same benefit as from this patch.

It disables possible use cases that shouldn't have been use cases at all.  Starbucks shouldn't be getting robbed of $3 this way, because they shouldn't be accepting 0-conf transactions anyway.  They are inherently unsafe.  Gavin's patch shows exactly why they are inherently unsafe - anyone could code such a patch and use it in their client.

Saying that 0-conf transactions can be secure is like not having locks on your house and pretending that it is perfectly safe to leave for the weekend.  "Well, as long as someone doesn't spend the time to figure out my house is unlocked, it'll be fine - nothing will be stolen."  While that may be true, more and more criminals will decide to check houses to see if they are locked if they know that people are leaving their houses unlocked.  Similarly, while 0-conf transactions may be mostly safe today, you can guarantee that patches to double-spend coins would be very prevalent in the future, just like aimbots are prevalent in FPS games.  Gavin is preventing a big problem before it starts by making it a really bad idea to accept 0-conf transactions and prevent merchants from relying on 0-conf transactions.

I am bullish on this news.  It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening.

I repeat, have you ever tried this? Basically impossible. So bullish on making Bitcoin worse? Permabull in denial

Not impossible at all.  All I would have to do is patch Gavin's pull request into my own Bitcoin-QT, and viola!  Double-spending powers!  You can say that he shouldn't have done that, but then, what would stop anyone else from making a similar patch and only sharing it among the criminal underground?

The miner has to install this patch. And everyone else on the Bitcoin network. No one cares about your client. No one would propagate your double spend. This patch is necessary to propagate the double spends. At the moment the Bitcoin network prohibits double spends. This patch enables it. A huge "benefit"...

Right, you are right - I misunderstood the patch.  My apologies.

[w00t]

That's why OP is in my very special list and will stay there

[kjj]

Other services are necessary to handle the risks that are inherent in such transactions.

That is what I suspect. Paypal/banks sponsor that change. Now they can claim that while waiting 10 minutes (or sometimes half an hour) your coffee gets cold. Better convert your Bitcoins to something else before spending it. Maybe we could store the value on little pieces of paper. Lets call it dollar. After some time when almost everyone accepts it we can get rid of that clumsy Bitcoin thing and only use this paper money. </sarcasm>

You seem quite intent on clinging to the mistaken belief that zero confirmation transactions were or are safe.  I guess if you aren't going to accept that work and hope-for-work are different, there isn't much point talking here.

P.S.  There seems to be some confusion here.  The network did not previously relay double spends, but this was bad because it meant that a vendor would be unaware of attacks.  That was one patch, and it was about relaying transactions.  The patch mentioned in the links in the first post is to change the default behavior of the node when being used for mining.  The relay patch needed broad support, the mining patch needs only one person to run it.

[thezerg]

Sure accepting zero-conf has a few problems.  But its a LOT safer then using a string of letters and numbers that any other individual can also use (credit card).  

Large merchants could accept cheap zero conf if they have a relationship with a significant amount of the mining resources:
Don't replace TXes coming from me.  Forward but flag as illegal double spend attempts (and notify me).  This makes it likely you can refuse service instantly or if it becomes a problem arrest the guy right there.

Given mining pools this relationship would not be hard.  Or the merchant makes his own pool.

If the double-spender was in collusion with a significant fraction (say X%) of the hashing power, and those miners were configured to NOT forward his TX then the double-spender would have X% likelihood of a successful double spend.  

That's a lot of work for a 1% (say) chance for a free $5 coffee and BTW never show your face at that store again :-).


So in practice we are fine for small brick and mortar payments.  But it may be a problem for $100+ brick and mortar txns.

[melvster]

Sure accepting zero-conf has a few problems.  But its a LOT safer then using a string of letters and numbers that any other individual can also use (credit card).  

Large merchants could accept cheap zero conf if they have a relationship with a significant amount of the mining resources:
Don't replace TXes coming from me.  Forward but flag as illegal double spend attempts (and notify me).  This makes it likely you can refuse service instantly or if it becomes a problem arrest the guy right there.

Given mining pools this relationship would not be hard.  Or the merchant makes his own pool.

If the double-spender was in collusion with a significant fraction (say X%) of the hashing power, and those miners were configured to NOT forward his TX then the double-spender would have X% likelihood of a successful double spend.  

That's a lot of work for a 1% (say) chance for a free $5 coffee and BTW never show your face at that store again :-).


So in practice we are fine for small brick and mortar payments.  But it may be a problem for $100+ brick and mortar txns.

+1

Cash is not safe.  I read that about 1% of all cash is counterfeit.  But we dont spend ten minutes checking cash for forgery in all instances. 

[dandirk]

None of this is really new... zero confs are probably more secure then checks back in the day when there wasn't any way to confirm the account/amount like they can do today.  Heck remember credit cards with that mechanical carbon/copy form and slider thingy...  The vendor had NO clue if the credit was worth anything, neither with checks...

I find it sort of amusing that BTC is basically this generations version of a check, slow as hell (in relation to technology today).  Back in the day and even today, checks are delayed by days to confirm funds.

How many people use paper checks?  A lot less then there used to be.  I wonder if the privacy aspect of btc is so important to go backwards in usefulness especially when every other option is almost instant.

Basically people will have to trust btc as much as they did with credit cards and checks 15 years ago.

I assume what will happen is that banks or services will offer some sort of trusted account network... like PayPal or something where you BTC in that service is considered trusted for faster transactions.  The cost of this obviously is the privacy aspect of BTC... Just the same as with checks when you had to have your DL on the check and show ID...

[BitcoinAshley]

"All I can say is, this is bitcoin... I don't trust it until I see six confirmations"

Lol @ people who think zero-conf transactions should be regularly used and considered safe. Haven't we been telling people for ages that they aren't safe? But we still have the whiners...

For things like candy machines and cigarettes and petrol and pizza delivery and starbucks $8 lattes and tiny purchases at vendor locations, there are a hundred great ideas for user-friendly services or protocols layered on top of bitcoin that would allow for instantaneous transactions that are SAFE. Use your brain instead of assuming one rigid solution and then whining about centralization or something. The bitcoin protocol simply does not allow for safe zero-conf transactions. Security needs to be robust and if a bunch of idiots trick themselves into thinking zero-conf is safe, bitcoin is not safe.

Relying on zero-conf transactions and whining when someone actually writes a patch to point out that they are not safe, well. Bitcoin isn't for the faint of heart.

Zero-conf transactions are not safe.

Zero-conf transactions are not safe.

Does anyone not understand this yet?

We keep saying over and over again to stop accepting zero-conf transactions, but people do it anyway because it seems secure. It's a very dangerous situation because the security of zero-conf transactions can change overnight simply by some fraction of the hashing power implementing that exact change.

[Zaih]

This is legitimately a terrible idea. Seriously stupid.

I'm sure there's perfectly good logic behind it, but it doesn't change the fact it's bad news.

I'm sure developers will find sufficient ways to get around this however, it surely can't be that hard, right?

[johnyj]

Bitcoin's main advantage over traditional payment network is it's low fee and international reach, not instant payment. A merchant could price all the risk in 0 confirmation payment in his pricing

[amencon]

Zero-conf transactions are not safe.

I don't think the argument is whether zero-conf transactions are safe or not, but if in certain use cases they are safe enough.

As far as I understand it, for cheap transactions the theory goes that it is too costly to make double spending worth it, not that they couldn't be done.  Much like bitcoin itself isn't "safe" from a prolonged 51% since it's theoretically possible someone could buy that much hashing power, more that the incentive doesn't outweigh the cost.

If merchants priced in double spends as fees or increased costs as johnyj says, I could really only see a problem if, to remain profitable, merchants would have to raise rates enough that bitcoins were cost prohibitive when compared to other methods of payment, however I haven't heard anyone make an argument that this is or would be the case.