Transaction reversability would be a BAD thing

[Cubic Earth]

Optional reversibility at least.  I've heard a million times on these forums that third-party services will offer the needed features that consumers desire.  The more features that are built into the protocol, the less reliant we will be on those shady centralized services that want to "know us", hit us with fees, or just Gox us.

Here is the concept.  It's probably been discussed and dismissed already, but here it is anyway:

You would be able to predesignate an address as a reversible address.  Two variables would need to be set, the block-depth of the reversibility and the address to which any reversed funds would be sent to.  Since an address doesn't exist on the blockchain until at least one satoshi is sent to it for the first time, you would have to send that first satoshi along with the proper reversibility instructions to setup the address.

After the one satoshi spend was confirmed, you could verify on-chain the reversible properties of the address, which again, would be the block-depth of reversibility and the go-to address of any reversed funds.  You could proceed to load up the address with coins.  Spending would be as normal for the owner.  It would be publicly verifiable that any spends originating from for such an address would be reversible until they were 'X' blocks deep in the chain.

If you spent reversible coins and wanted to undo the transaction, you would have to broadcast a new transaction and have it confirmed in the chain before 'X' blocks had elapsed.  In order for that new 'double spend' to be valid, you would have to direct the funds to the same go-to address originally specified when you set up your reversible address.

The point of having a designated go-to address be different from the originating address is in case your private keys were compromised.  You would still be able to undo the transaction, as would the attacker.  But unless they were in control of the second address as well, they wouldn't end up with the coins.

There could be an upper limit to reversibility, perhaps a month.  There are pros and cons to encumbering your coins as such.  No vending machine would accept coins that could be reversed.  But an internet retailer would, they would just need to wait X blocks + 6 confirmations before shipping your stuff.  The nice part is you could get the email receipt from them that you paid and all was good before the reversibility window had passed.  If you didn't get the email, maybe because someone had man-in-the-middled the merchant's address, you could fix the mistake before it became permanent.

[1714479950]

1714479950

[1714479950]

1714479950

[seriouscoin]

Lame..

[Bit_Happy]

BTC transactions are not reversible.
Simple beauty is good. 

[Beliathon]

Just lost all respect for OP.

[pungopete468]

Reversibility is a fallacious idea. The only reason we have reversibility today is because the huge banks aren't afraid to steal from a legitimate business when a customer wants free goods or services.

Reversibility is terrible if you've ever been subject to a charge back. Even when you follow every step required to protect yourself, you're still unlikely to win a charge back request. The CC company has more to gain by awarding in favor of the customer than the merchant.

Bitcoin will not have reversibility. If you get scammed, be more careful next time, and take the scammer to court. Get a judgement, garnish wages, take liens on personal property, etc... Bitcoin reversibility is not the answer.

Reversibility creates new victims, the scammers don't usually lose a dime.

[Coins Source]

Transaction reversibility will eventually happen with Bitcoin, when a wider adoption to the masses occur. But, the reversibility will only take place with 3rd parties that transact your Bitcoins, kinda like how a credit card company works now.

When all this happens, Bitcoin will become more and more centralized and become less appealing to the underground audience, but really appeal to the consumers.

All that will effect Bitcoins price.

[BrewCrewFan]

Transaction reversibility will eventually happen with Bitcoin, when a wider adoption to the masses occur. But, the reversibility will only take place with 3rd parties that transact your Bitcoins, kinda like how a credit card company works now.

When all this happens, Bitcoin will become more and more centralized and become less appealing to the underground audience, but really appeal to the consumers.

All that will effect Bitcoins price.

Yeah and then slow down the transactions while your coins/ funds are in limbo. No one likes to buy BTC at exchanges sometimes if it not instant.

[pungopete468]

Transaction reversibility will eventually happen with Bitcoin, when a wider adoption to the masses occur. But, the reversibility will only take place with 3rd parties that transact your Bitcoins, kinda like how a credit card company works now.

When all this happens, Bitcoin will become more and more centralized and become less appealing to the underground audience, but really appeal to the consumers.

All that will effect Bitcoins price.

I disagree, the third party won't have any control over the protocol. They could theoretically create an alt and then back it with Bitcoin, but Bitcoin will never be reversible.

It's unfair for an organization with a vested interest in their customer to have the unilateral power to rob a third party merchant of money received for legitimate goods or services... It's not a good system now, and it wouldn't be a good system for Bitcoin where there is practically no oversight on the decision-making.

If you can't live without transaction reversibility then I suggest you stay away from gold, Bitcoin, stocks, and financial investment in general... Bitcoin isn't alone on the block without it, and it's not an attractive attribute anyways.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why not just have the person send back the coins and reverse it manually. Then u don't have to change bitcoin

[cbeast]

Just bring back the practices of down-payments, deposits, and escrows. They are from back before a bank could just print more money and cause inflation. They worked fine. Bitcoin puts them on steroids.

[cooltoadfrommoon]

i dont think that would be a good idea 

[Cubic Earth]

I don't know if most of you even read what I wrote.

This would not alter the ability to send irreversible transactions.  That is one of the main reasons bitcoin is so powerful - I agree - and it seems most of you do to.

The point of this would be to add functionality.  It would add to bitcoin.  Could you please be more clear what you think it would take away from the system?

Keep in mind that every client and wallet would be updated.  If you received a reversible transaction you would be notified as soon as it was detected that it was reversible and you could act accordingly.

Obviously exchanges wouldn't credit your account until the reversibility period had passed + 3 confirms.  What would someone else loose in that situation?  You would have been the person to encumber your coins to protect yourself against hacks, so you can't argue that you would be loosing anything you didn't know you were giving up.

[R2Pleasent]

Transaction "reversibility" is not useful without some form of arbitration, which forces a human element into the transaction.  Paypal reversibility can be useful (in theory) in the sense that a third party judges whether both parties fulfilled their obligations in a transaction.  If the person receiving the Bitcoins can provide concrete proof to the third party that they also completed their end of the deal, then the judge can mediate disputes, and reverse funds back when this proof is not presented.

The scenario you present has no extra protection.  Every extra bit of protection to the consumer is simply taken from the merchant.  The merchants will not accept a payment which can be reversed.  They have no way to prevent the reversal aside from simply waiting until it is no longer possible.  If they ship an item, and the buyer reverses a payment, then they have no recourse.

At the end of the day, whoever goes first in a transaction must trust the other party.  Your method does not fix this fact.  It simply re-defines who goes first.  At the end of the day, one party still must trust another party to deliver / not reverse a transaction.

[lnternet]

I don't see how the bitcoin protocol could possible support your idea. There is no way to make an address have extra properties. You should probably look into mastercoin or counterparty for functionalities like this, or just a 3rd party provider that handles bitcoin payments.

[cbeast]

I think what you are looking for already exists. nLockTime

[Peter R]

I think what you are looking for already exists. nLockTime

Yes, that is what I was going to say.  Can we not already do this with bitcoin's existing scripting language?  Perhaps the script could assign the coins to the recipient's address after nLockTime >= 6 and to an address that you control for nLockTime < 6.  

This is a question for someone above my pay grade, however....

[Cubic Earth]

Transaction "reversibility" is not useful without some form of arbitration, which forces a human element into the transaction.  Paypal reversibility can be useful (in theory) in the sense that a third party judges whether both parties fulfilled their obligations in a transaction.  If the person receiving the Bitcoins can provide concrete proof to the third party that they also completed their end of the deal, then the judge can mediate disputes, and reverse funds back when this proof is not presented.

The scenario you present has no extra protection.  Every extra bit of protection to the consumer is simply taken from the merchant.  The merchants will not accept a payment which can be reversed.  They have no way to prevent the reversal aside from simply waiting until it is no longer possible.  If they ship an item, and the buyer reverses a payment, then they have no recourse.

At the end of the day, whoever goes first in a transaction must trust the other party.  Your method does not fix this fact.  It simply re-defines who goes first.  At the end of the day, one party still must trust another party to deliver / not reverse a transaction.

This system would primarily guard against hacking.  It is not about resolving disputes.  One example is the address-switch, where I was trying to pay a merchant.  I sent the funds, but the merchant never received it.  I would reverse that.

Another scenario would if your computer got hacked, and wallet emptied.  You had an alert system for your addresses, you noticed coins moved without your authorization, so you reverse it.

No merchant would suffer at all.  Every merchant would wait for your "hold" period to elapse before they consider the funds received.  If you wanted stuff instantly, don't sent money that has a hold on it.

[MoonShadow]

Optional reversibility at least.  I've heard a million times on these forums that third-party services will offer the needed features that consumers desire.  The more features that are built into the protocol, the less reliant we will be on those shady centralized services that want to "know us", hit us with fees, or just Gox us.

Here is the concept.  It's probably been discussed and dismissed already, but here it is anyway:

What you want to be able to do is already possible using transaction scripting and a blockchain enforcable digital contract.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts

Most likely something similar to example #2, but both example #4 and example #7 have elements similar to what you want to do here.  Alternatively, a third party excrow service can be employed without transaction scripting using only multi-sig transactions.

[franky1]

bitcoin wins because it does not charge back.

if you like chargebacks... use paypal

[drippx]

If your computer is hacked I dont think theres anything youre gonna do to reverese it