Transactions Withholding Attack

[Siegfried]

In-person retail transactions will have to be accepted with 0 confirmations, or no one will use Bitcoin for them. There are lots of possible ways to do this. The two most likely ones are probably to treat a 0-confirmation transaction like a check which could possibly bounce, and require the purchaser to show ID, and/or to use a third party who guarantees against double-spends. The latter could be done using a split-key so the third party doesn't have unilateral access to the funds.

Another destruction of decentralization and taking us back to the system we have now.

It's still decentralized. Any company can provide escrow services and/or no-double-spend guarantees and/or photo IDs.

That is not decentralization, because you have counter-party risk. Also big fish eat little fish, so trends towards centralization over time.

Besides retail is going away as the 3D printer rises and we will download and print. Don't think the 3D printer will be limited to simple materials and forms, they already have multi-head printers and later will surely see automated sewers and weavers, etc..

In person retail transactions will be accepted with 0 confirmations. Customers will not accept 10 minute waits or 1 minute waits. Most won't even accept 10 second waits once the novelty factor wears off. And reducing the block time is not a viable solution.

Retail is going away because you lose an hour driving there and back, and selection is limited. Instant customization is coming delivered via the internet instantly.

Anyone who thinks that Bitcoin, or any digital currency, is going to eliminate the presence of financial services companies and bring us to a world where everyone interacts with everyone else on a purely peer-to-peer basis, is living in a fantasy world.

Ha. I think you are wrong. Let's see who wins this bet.

I'm reminded, as I often am when thinking about Bitcoin, about the Internet during the early to mid 1990s, where some people thought that the fundamentally peer-to-peer nature of the Internet meant we'd never have large corporations running enormous websites.

Some people had fantasies for a long-time about PCs being ubiquitous. It didn't happen for the first 3 decades, but now with the smartphone, it is happening.

Those large sites are next on my list to slay, after I am done slaying Bitcoin.

We were basically lacking a funding model to compete with those large sites decentralized. With a better Bitcoin, we will have it. I've had many ideas about how to destroy facebook, but the barrier was always the fucking credit card companies and Paypal bullshit.

The 3D-printing revolution will take away market share from Amazon, right?

[1714927175]

1714927175

[1714927175]

1714927175

[AnonyMint]

The 3D-printing revolution will take away market share from Amazon, right?

We still have to pay for and download the designs to feed into the 3D printer.

I want to prevent this cartel attack so the non-cartel merchants can be small, diverse, and numerous.

[Siegfried]

The 3D-printing revolution will take away market share from Amazon, right?

We still have to pay for and download the designs to feed into the 3D printer.

I want to prevent this cartel attack so the non-cartel merchants can be small, diverse, and numerous.

There will be a lot of free, open-source designs for common products and it will be easier for designers to sell their proprietary designs directly to customers without the need for an Amazon. 

[AnonyMint]

The 3D-printing revolution will take away market share from Amazon, right?

We still have to pay for and download the designs to feed into the 3D printer.

I want to prevent this cartel attack so the non-cartel merchants can be small, diverse, and numerous.

There will be a lot of free, open-source designs for common products

Those don't impact our discussion.

and it will be easier for designers to sell their proprietary designs directly to customers without the need for an Amazon.  

If we prevent the cartel attack I have described.

P.S. Saw this on this page:

Advertisement: Satoshi is no god. He did not come down from the mountain with 10 golden rules engraved in stone for no one to question.

[Mylon]

Been reading and more reading and more reading.

And all I hear is noise that Amazon will try to destroy bitcoin by adopting it.

- own downloadable client... don't really see that happening, at least not in the near future. (loads of work + time = loads of money)
- integrated in website, possible even likely. Them modifying the code with malicious intent, doubtful.
- Them setting up a huge mining pool, unlikely.
End of story, executing this attack, means you need to be a multi billion dollar company, investing multi millions, on something that is not morally acceptable.

Ok true thats what big companies often do. (if they see profit in it)

So lets assume Amazon did this,
Due to the open nature of the blockchain, people would find out, sooner or later. (expect sooner)
The moment this gets found out, several things can happen.
- Miners cartel against Amazon, Amazon blocks no longer get accepted. (bye bye profit, and reputation of the company)
- Miners don't care and continue their business of making money. (the world is bigger than Amazon) Users however scream murder at Amazon and will petition to boy-cot Amazon.
- Nobody cares and Amazon makes a little bit more money than they would otherwise.

[AnonyMint]

[snip the unsubstantiated noise]

Ok true thats what big companies often do. (if they see profit in it)

So lets assume Amazon did this,
Due to the open nature of the blockchain, people would find out, sooner or later. (expect sooner)
The moment this gets found out, several things can happen.
- Miners cartel against Amazon, Amazon blocks no longer get accepted. (bye bye profit, and reputation of the company)

Already refuted upthread.

Amazon can wait until its miners win a block. Amazon can use 0-confirmations for its customers as explained upthread (customers are repeat). Small merchants often can't.

- Miners don't care and continue their business of making money. (the world is bigger than Amazon) Users however scream murder at Amazon and will petition to boy-cot Amazon.
- Nobody cares and Amazon makes a little bit more money than they would otherwise.

You entirely missed the points upthread about how a cartel penalizes everyone else and forces them to join the cartel, e.g. Amazon delays the transactions of everyone else. Etc.

Please comprehend the thread before posting more noise. You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.

[Rassah]

Amazon can wait until its miners win a block. Amazon can use 0-confirmations for its customers as explained upthread (customers are repeat). Small merchants often can't.

Have you been keeping up with the new stuff proposed in release 0.9? Or the process of doing business with VISA under the threat of chargebacks?
I would guess not. Small merchants, and likely most transactions, will be accepted with 0 confirmations. The bigger ones may require a confirmation, or may be accepted with 0 confirmations if the customer provides some ID. So from the merchant's point of view, small merchants will get their transactions accepted between 10 and 20 minutes, while Amazon will have their transactions accepted between 20 and 60+ minutes. From a customer's point of view, who is used to 0 confirmation transactions, using their own wallet will make their transaction show up almost instantly with the merchants and likely with Amazon, while using Amazon's wallet their transaction will show up instantly when shopping on Amazon, but will take an extremely long time to show up when shopping with other merchants.

So, option A, use your own wallet, get instant 0-confirmation purchases everywhere,
Option B, use Amazon's wallet, get 0-confirmation purchases at Amazon, and 60 minute confirmations everywhere else.

I think people would avoid the "broken" Amazon wallet.

You entirely missed the points upthread about how a cartel penalizes everyone else and forces them to join the cartel, e.g. Amazon delays the transactions of everyone else. Etc.

If Amazon was actually stupid enough to block everyone else's transactions from being accepted in blocks, then all they will be doing is wasting mining resources for reduced fees, and, although they will be delaying transaction confirmations a bit (which, as mentioned, won't matter to small merchants), they will basically be generously giving those excluded transactions to all other miners. Think about it, if Amazon has 20% of the hashing power, and you as a mining pool only have %10, before Amazon you would get 10% of all blocks and 10% of all transaction fees, but now you will still get 10% of all blocks, but those 20% Amazon-rejected transactions will get spread out, giving you an extra 2% in reward fees. Chances are that this may even increase overall mining profitability (for everyone but Amazon) enough to entice new mining power to join the network, and reduce Amazon's 20% share ever further. In the end, it's a penalty on the customers, who, being used to 0 confirmation transactions won't notice or care, and a reward to all other miners, who don't care about confirmation times anyway.


BTW, I am not posting this as a reply to AnonyMint, but instead only for the benefit of other readers who may be new to bitcoin, because

Never had I learned one fact or new morsel of information

is a perfect description of AnonyMint's modus operandi.

[AnonyMint]

Amazon can wait until its miners win a block. Amazon can use 0-confirmations for its customers as explained upthread (customers are repeat). Small merchants often can't.

So, option A, use your own wallet, get instant 0-confirmation purchases everywhere,
Option B, use Amazon's wallet, get 0-confirmation purchases at Amazon, and 60 minute confirmations everywhere else.

I think people would avoid the "broken" Amazon wallet.

There is nothing stopping the Bitcoin owner who is also an Amazon customer, from having copies of his/her private keys and sending his/her transactions from any client he/she wishes to. Moreover, there is no way to detect that a spend was sent from an Amazon wallet where Amazon is merely holding the private keys for the customer and can issue the send transaction for innumerable IP addresses (heck botnets only cost $100).

I am not going to bother replying to this dolt's other nonsense.

I see this idiot continues to attempt character assassination, yet it isn't working.

[Rassah]

There is nothing stopping the Bitcoin owner who is also an Amazon customer, from having copies of his/her private keys and sending his/her transactions from any client he/she wishes to.

Which just creates a special wallet that is only useful for Amazon transactions. Extra inconvenience to shop at one business, and

Moreover, there is no way to detect that a spend was sent from an Amazon wallet where Amazon is merely holding the private keys for the customer and can issue the send transaction for innumerable IP addresses (heck botnets only cost $100).

this doesn't make sense, since the original proposition of the attack was that Amazon transactions wouldn't be shared with others, anyway. What's the point of hiding Amazon transactions in various IPs, if the only time others see them is after they are included in a block? So, again, in the end, you end up with the option of

A. Use Amazon's wallet, which lets your transaction show up instantly when shopping on Amazon, but forces you to wait 10+ minutes for your transaction to show up when shopping elsewhere, or
B. use your own wallet, which lets your transactions show up instantly regardless of where you shop

OR if Amazon forces people to only use their own wallet software to buy from Amazon:
C. Use Amazon's wallet to show at Amazon, your own wallet to shop elsewhere, both with instant transactions, and have Amazon give miners a 20% revenue boost by not bothering to process the available transactions.

It also doesn't make sense for Amazon to hold the private keys AND still use those keys to add transactions to the blockchain AND mine those transactions and their fees themselves, since Amazon can achieve the exact same thing by using an offline wallet system, where customers transfer funds into Amazon's shared wallet instead of Amazon's wallet app, still charge the same fees they would charge before but do it directly, and just do their 20% mining with not accepting other transactions into their blocks on the side, completely independent from this offchain transaction crap.

As has been shown over and over and over and over and over again, you just don't get how bitcoin works. Also, I thought you were ignoring me?

[AnonyMint]

It is not amazing this low IQ idiot continues to miss the points that were made upthread.

Yes Amazon won't share its transactions, but above you were writing about customers of Amazon sending transactions to other merchants, not Amazon. That you can't understand that the customer can be both a customer of Amazon (the cartel) and of non-cartel merchants and that doesn't violate any of my upthread points, shows how much you don't understand this thread.

I guess it still hasn't clued into your slow brain that the customer will have his transactions delayed by cartel miners when he sends his transaction on the open Bitcoin network to a non-cartel merchant. Yet when that same customer sends his transaction through Amazon's client it will be accepted with 0-confirmation and then added the Bitcoin block chain by cartel miners. (the cartel  knows which transactions are theirs, the non-cartel merchants don't know which transactions are for a non-cartel merchant or a cartel and can't determine that from IP address, so the attack is asymmetrically in favor of the cartel)

I had explained all of this upthread. And I am not going to explain it again.

If you continue this intentional FUD, I am going to reply to every post you make with the first sentence of this post.

[Rassah]

It is not amazing this low IQ idiot continues to miss the points that were made upthread.

It's amazing how you continue to ignore me, and continue to reply with "I have refuted that point" over and over, not realizing that if you had done a good job of refuting them, I and other people would not keep repeating them. Sometimes when everyone else things you are wrong, it may be wise to recheck your premises.

Also, my IQ is around 160, so 

[AnonyMint]

Also, my IQ is around 160, so  

You are now a confirmed liar.

I know of at least one 160 IQ person and he is smarter than me. You don't even demonstrate Mensa 132 level, which I am above. More evidence.

[Rassah]

Also, my IQ is around 160, so  

You are now a confirmed liar.

I also learned to talk when I was 1, learned to read by 3, read most of our house library, including grownup stuff, by the time I was 5, learned to play the piano proficiently, including classical by Bach and Chopen, by the time I was 7 or 8, was admitted into a professional boy's choir as one of the youngest members by 7 and our choir won the national competition when I was 8 or 9, learned advanced Algebra by 4th grade, Calculus by 6th grade, skipped 7th grade entirely, got A's and B's in all my classes despite almost never studying by deriving exam test answers right during the exam (grades dropped in 11th and 12th grades because I didn't do any work at all), received a doctorate level education in electromagnetic physics when I was still in 12th grade, and actually graduated from two schools at the same time, the public I attended with everyone else, and the private 6 year one I attended on weekends that focused on history, literature, theology, and politics of Eastern Europe. Oh, and I have a Bachelors and Masters in business finance and economics, and I speak, like, 5 languages fairly fluently, and am learning two more.

Oh, I am also a descendant of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Oleg Tozoni, and a direct descendant of a royal lineage, which technically makes me a Count.

Now prove any of that is a lie  

Also, this

You don't even demonstrate Mensa 132 level, which I am above.

doesnt actually prove you have a high IQ, it just proves that you are a racist with a possible eugenist streak.

[MoonShadow]

Also, my IQ is around 160, so  

You are now a confirmed liar.

I know of at least one 160 IQ person and he is smarter than me. You don't even demonstrate Mensa 132 level, which I am above. More evidence.

My younger brother has a tested IQ above 160.  He also has a mild case of Asbergers's Syndrome, and has real trouble making practical decisions as a direct result.  No one that has ever met him would think that he is so intelligent, particularly since IQ doesn't measure intelligence.  Only those who don't know what the IQ actually measures use it as evidence of their own superiority.

I rang in at 149 as a teen, BTW.

[klee]

I have it bigger than all of you...my IQ I mean!

[MoonShadow]

I have it bigger than all of you...my IQ I mean!

I find it all silly, myself.

[AnonyMint]

Also, my IQ is around 160, so  

You are now a confirmed liar.

I also learned to talk when I was 1, learned to read by 3,

Ditto but I quickly diverged from reading and language to taking everything apart, math, and algorithms. There is a photo of me as an infant with tools.

read most of our house library, including grownup stuff, by the time I was 5, learned to play the piano proficiently, including classical by Bach and Chopen, by the time I was 7 or 8, was admitted into a professional boy's choir as one of the youngest members by 7 and our choir won the national competition when I was 8 or 9, learned advanced Algebra by 4th grade, Calculus by 6th grade, skipped 7th grade entirely, got A's and B's in all my classes despite almost never studying by deriving exam test answers right during the exam (grades dropped in 11th and 12th grades because I didn't do any work at all), received a doctorate level education in electromagnetic physics when I was still in 12th grade, and actually graduated from two schools at the same time, the public I attended with everyone else, and the private 6 year one I attended on weekends that focused on history, literature, theology, and politics of Eastern Europe. Oh, and I have a Bachelors and Masters in business finance and economics, and I speak, like, 5 languages fairly fluently, and am learning two more.

Oh, I am also a descendant of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Oleg Tozoni, and a direct descendant of a royal lineage, which technically makes me a Count.

Now prove any of that is a lie  

To the extent that any of that is true, it appears to demonstrate an affinity for the language arts, which is completely inapplicable to the this thread which is deeply algorithmic. And the above may also be due to prodding and elitist connections of your lineage, e.g. pushing you early.

Whereas I was not pushed and in fact my formal elementary and primary school education was chaotic and neglected with big gaps of wasted years. Thus my raw intellect has usually been obscured from most people.

I know of at least one 160 IQ person and he is smarter than me. You don't even demonstrate Mensa 132 level, which I am above.

doesnt actually prove you have a high IQ, it just proves that you are a racist with a possible eugenist streak.

Again you demonstrate very low comprehension skills. You didn't discern that in the linked post I was presenting links from James A Donald, not my own views. And I ended the relevant paragraph with a link to Eric S Raymond's perspective, whom I credited as being smarter.

And you don't factor in all the possibilities. For example you didn't factor in the possibility that I was writing allowing Donald to play the role of the devils advocate from which I could present a multiplexion or permutation of logic.

You have consistently failed to factor in all the variables in your analysis of this thread. One of the reasons I am programmer with million user commercial successes, is because I am capable of holding dozens if not hundreds of variables in my head in a model.

I am not claiming I am infallible.

Also, my IQ is around 160, so  

You are now a confirmed liar.

I know of at least one 160 IQ person and he is smarter than me. You don't even demonstrate Mensa 132 level, which I am above. More evidence.

My younger brother has a tested IQ above 160.  He also has a mild case of Asbergers's Syndrome, and has real trouble making practical decisions as a direct result.  No one that has ever met him would think that he is so intelligent, particularly since IQ doesn't measure intelligence.  Only those who don't know what the IQ actually measures use it as evidence of their own superiority.

I rang in at 149 as a teen, BTW.

Perhaps it is because none of you took a real IQ test:

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html

http://www.sigmasociety.com/sigma_teste/sigma_teste_eng.asp

Many IQ tests only test for example how fast your brain can process some limited pattern matching algorithms. E.g. raven's matrices. I won't be the fastest at any particular prewired algorithm (although I am fast enough to make it to Mensa level), yet what I am very good at is new algorithms. The above test is going to measure my IQ more accurately.

As demonstrated in this thread, on creativity and algorithms my IQ may even exceed the 150-160 IQ genius I am thinking of: Eric S Raymond. He is clearly superior to me in the language arts. That is not hard to do, I never tried to develop my language arts and even mostly ignored it by choice.

My language processing engine can not keep up with my "visual mathematics" (creativity, logic, and algorithms) brain which is why you will dropped words, numerous typos, and grammatical errors. I simply don't want to slow down for that linear output stream. Boring.

Every IQ test I take says I am strong in visual mathematics. My SAT and ACT both confirmed this, with my 85-90th percentile verbal score holding me back from being far above Mensa level. Besides I've always been a slacker at many times that are formal and highly structured, such as preparing for the SAT. I showed up with a hangover for the test. And the ACT I took after spending the entire summer locked inside my room with an Apple II and I took it immediately after a long travel.

[MoonShadow]

Honestly, no one really gives a shit, Anonymint.

[CoinCube]

Honestly, no one really gives a shit, Anonymint.

I do.

I judge AnonyMints intellect not by the above post because as they say talk is cheep but by the quality of his work. His economic writings are profound. (See my post titled Economic Devastation)

There is no denying he is one smart dude.

[Buffer Overflow]

Perhaps it is because none of you took a real IQ test:

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html

http://www.sigmasociety.com/sigma_teste/sigma_teste_eng.asp

Many IQ tests only test for example how fast your brain can process some limited pattern matching algorithms. E.g. raven's matrices. I won't be the fastest at any particular prewired algorithm (although I am fast enough to make it to Mensa level), yet what I am very good at is new algorithms. The above test is going to measure my IQ more accurately.

As demonstrated in this thread, on creativity and algorithms my IQ may even exceed the 160 IQ genius I am thinking of: Eric S Raymond. He is clearly superior to me in the language arts. That is not hard to do, I never tried to develop my language arts and even mostly ignored it by choice.

My language processing engine can not keep up with my "visual mathematics" (creativity, logic, and algorithms) brain which is why you will dropped words, numerous typos, and grammatical errors. I simply don't want to slow down for that linear output stream. Boring.

"People who boast about their IQ's are losers" - Stephen Hawking