bitvisit (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
 |
June 19, 2013, 10:50:02 PM |
|
I know it would require all the wallets to get on the same page here, but would it be possible to put in some sort of accepting mechanism for peer to peer bitcoin transactions..
For example Bill sends Steven 1 bitcoin. Bill request delivery confirmation at a cost of .0001 btc..
Once Steve "accepts" the bitcoin confirmation is sent back to Steve.
Until the transaction is accepted, bill could cancel the transaction if lets say 72 hours have passed since bill sent the funds..
A safeguard feature such as this I think would take quite a bit of risk out of loosing btc for no reason..
I myself sent funds to a wallet address then was informed the person no longer had a login to that wallet, and could not retrieve it.
A 72 hour time out would have returned this to my wallet.
It is just an idea, and I know with all the different wallet providers this would be a huge undertaking.. but it is something that would help mitigate some of the risk thus helping bitcoin become more main stream..
Anyone have any idea on how we could suggest an idea such as this to the proper authorities?
or even a better idea than this..
|
|
|
|
|
|
ixne
|
|
June 19, 2013, 10:55:15 PM |
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
bitvisit (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
June 19, 2013, 10:58:55 PM |
|
NO, I am saying if it was not accepted within 72 hours, and would only apply if someone wanted to pay the fee for it..
I don't know the right answer, I do know that there is no recourse right now if that happens.. And I feel something with recourse could help bitcoin go more mainstream.. Maybe a charge back model like credit cards or something would be better I don't know.. Just an idea..
|
|
|
|
|
|
mcdett
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:21:37 AM
Last edit: June 20, 2013, 03:30:09 AM by mcdett |
|
NO, I am saying if it was not accepted within 72 hours, and would only apply if someone wanted to pay the fee for it..
I don't know the right answer, I do know that there is no recourse right now if that happens.. And I feel something with recourse could help bitcoin go more mainstream.. Maybe a charge back model like credit cards or something would be better I don't know.. Just an idea..
BTC having, "no recourse," creates an entirely new sort of transfer of value system. It has different abilities (some that make it more powerful), then our traditional models of value transfer. People want to mold it into what they know which is what they're comfortable with. In the instance you gave, I assume that the party sending the btc had already received value from the party receiving the btc. If the btc are lost it is a problem with the seller of value not the seller of btc. The agreement is good, why do you care to get your btc back. This sort of feature could occur in 3rd party escrow services, and maybe once high bred multi sig can be levered (will still need 3rd party), but I don't believe it would ever be part of the main protocol. Good luck! |
|
|
|
|
|
CasinoBit
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:09:50 AM |
|
For a problem to be fixed you first need to have a problem...
|
|
|
|
|
|
legitnick
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:32:42 AM |
|
Interesting theory, but I dont see this ever happening. Lost bitcoins dont harm the bitcoin economy in any way, they actually make bitcoins more valuable.
|
|
|
|
Luciddd
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
June 20, 2013, 03:21:42 AM |
|
The problem is easy, you use a merchant service like BitPay or anyone else who has this sort of system designed.
Bitcoin by default needs to stay simple and clean. If you aren't a tech geek you shouldn't be using the default client.
|
|
|
|
bbit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin
|
|
June 20, 2013, 04:52:40 AM |
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
cp1
|
|
June 20, 2013, 05:00:30 AM |
|
But then you couldn't send them to offline storage -- you'd need to have your wallet client open all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
AliceWonder
|
|
June 20, 2013, 05:47:51 AM |
|
But then you couldn't send them to offline storage -- you'd need to have your wallet client open all the time.
This - it doesn't matter if a client is on or off, the user on vacation, etc. I don't want to have to confirm receipt and when sending large amounts I assume the standard protocol is to send a small amount first and ask if they got it before sending the rest. -=- Your friend should have a backup of his old wallet. Sorry but that's his problem. |
|
|
|
viboracecata
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000
Varanida : Fair & Transparent Digital Ecosystem
|
|
June 20, 2013, 09:05:10 AM |
|
If we give every stoshidice a unique number, then we can track its activities, would this help to your opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
jmutch
|
|
June 20, 2013, 09:45:16 AM |
|
NO, I am saying if it was not accepted within 72 hours, and would only apply if someone wanted to pay the fee for it..
I don't know the right answer, I do know that there is no recourse right now if that happens.. And I feel something with recourse could help bitcoin go more mainstream.. Maybe a charge back model like credit cards or something would be better I don't know.. Just an idea..
BTC having, "no recourse," creates an entirely new sort of transfer of value system. It has different abilities (some that make it more powerful), then our traditional models of value transfer. People want to mold it into what they know which is what they're comfortable with. In the instance you gave, I assume that the party sending the btc had already received value from the party receiving the btc. If the btc are lost it is a problem with the seller of value not the seller of btc. The agreement is good, why do you care to get your btc back. This sort of feature could occur in 3rd party escrow services, and maybe once high bred multi sig can be levered (will still need 3rd party), but I don't believe it would ever be part of the main protocol. Good luck! Agree with this opinion. I don't think it should be a part of the main protocol, but it could be a good idea for the basis of a second layer. This layer fixing all the problems such as transaction time etc....a trusted 3rd party |
|
|
|
|
bitvisit (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:48:47 PM |
|
I know if this was a service that a wallet provided I would definitely pay a little extra on all transactions I am not sure of. Maybe a payment insurance or something like that.
And in the instance mentioned above, it was a hosting provider and now no longer takes bitcoins because of this lack of recourse. Its ended up being a lose lose.. I lost my coins I sent as a payment, and still had to pay for hosting using an other method.
Would anyone else pay a small fee to have deliver insurance or confirmation on it? So if this happens you could get your payment back.. There has to be something a wallet company could add..
|
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:50:05 PM |
|
what makes you think lost btc are a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
legitnick
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:08:10 PM |
|
Yea, I dont think lost btc is a problem at all, just makes btc more valuable.
|
|
|
|
bitvisit (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:10:36 PM |
|
what makes you think lost btc are a problem?
Because it has happened to me twice now. 1 time to a hosting company, and a second time to a scam site where I thought I was sending the funds to be exchanged.. I know the anonymity of bitcoin is one of the more attractive benefits of transacting in bitcoin, however if there was a service i could pay for that insured my payment I would gladly pay it.. Maybe i am the only one who thinks this way.. |
|
|
|
|
|
cp1
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:12:31 PM |
|
Try using escrow, double check your addresses, and read up about sites you use.
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:14:15 PM |
|
Because it has happened to me twice now.
That's not a problem with Bitcoin, it's a problem with you. |
|
|
|
|
RoadToHell
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:15:46 PM |
|
And in the instance mentioned above, it was a hosting provider and now no longer takes bitcoins because of this lack of recourse. Its ended up being a lose lose.. I lost my coins I sent as a payment, and still had to pay for hosting using an other method.
They stopped accepting bitcoins for payment - well okay, that's their choice. But then they immediately threw away the private key to their address?? At best that is lame on their part. But more likely it seems doubtful. Have you tracked their address to see if there are transactions going out of it after your payment? I know that you'll probably not get the money back from them since you don't really have much leverage, but it seems that they owe you a refund for the double payment. I mean the nature of bitcoin is that once the payment is sent the money belongs to the payee. If they lost it after you paid that is an operational problem on their part and they didn't really have any business asking you to pay again. |
Sam Spade: We were talking about a lot more money than this.
Kasper Gutman: Yes, sir, we were, but this is genuine coin of the realm. With a dollar of this, you can buy ten dollars of talk.
|
|
|
|
legitnick
|
|
June 20, 2013, 11:39:12 PM |
|
I know if this was a service that a wallet provided I would definitely pay a little extra on all transactions I am not sure of. Maybe a payment insurance or something like that.
And in the instance mentioned above, it was a hosting provider and now no longer takes bitcoins because of this lack of recourse. Its ended up being a lose lose.. I lost my coins I sent as a payment, and still had to pay for hosting using an other method.
Would anyone else pay a small fee to have deliver insurance or confirmation on it? So if this happens you could get your payment back.. There has to be something a wallet company could add..
I dont see this happening. Theres not a need for it because if a transaction is sent to an address it would arrive.. |
|
|
|
|
