Transaction reversability would be a BAD thing

[Lauda]

It already is reversible. As long as the counter-party agrees, they can send the money back to you.   

Which is more than enough.
For any other means of reversing a transaction, please use PayPal.

[1714505034]

1714505034

[1714505034]

1714505034

[amspir]

I'm not understanding any advantage to this.  Why would someone choose to accept coins that could be reversed?

That's how online commerce works now.  Why do you think Bitcoin would not work if it has the same protections as the dollar?

A credit card transaction, as opposed to a cash or irreversible transaction, is different in that the payment processor is acting as an escrow agent.  Money in a credit card transaction is reversible until the sender can no longer reverse it.  The payment processor may extend credit to the merchant to spend those funds until that point, but that is an extra service of the escrow agent/payment processor.

There isn't a need to change how bitcoin works to use escrow.

You seem to be misunderstanding how things work now.

With all due respect, please reread what I wrote.  For the credit card processing system to work, funds to the merchant are either held in escrow or given to the merchant on credit.

If someone, say your granny, has their bank account accessed as a result of phishing, and all the money taken out, the bank will make her good.

And granny could be mugged for her cash, or her bitcoin's private keys.  Both are terrible crimes.

If you want Bitcoin to replace the dollar, you need the same functionality available to the same credulous non-technical people.  

Such a problem could be solved by companies proving an ubiquitous escrow service, like VISA/Mastercard.

[Cubic Earth]

I think people have only read the title to my post, and not the proposal.    Seriously.

It already is reversible. As long as the counter-party agrees, they can send the money back to you.   

This is not about protecting the two parties in a transaction from each other!!.  This would be used to make sure your funds got to the intended destination or if your computer was hacked, you could recover the money, if you acted fast.

Do people understand there would be a time window of your choosing?  It could be as short as one block?  There are good points to make against this idea, but so far hardly anyone has addressed what I wrote.

I'll just restate again for people to lazy to read my OP - an address would be optionally designated by you, ahead of time, as reversible for a given time period.  If you were a merchant, or anyone else receiving funds, you see immediately upon receipt that the funds were provisional and could be rescinded.  You would not treat reversible funds as cleared / confirmed until the hold had expired.

Once the hold expires, they are no longer reversible.

This system would not in any way protect you from an dishonest merchant whom you sent fund to.

[e4xit]

OP I only had to read the subject of this post to be able to say that transaction reversability would be a bad thing.

[Hawker]

I'm not understanding any advantage to this.  Why would someone choose to accept coins that could be reversed?

That's how online commerce works now.  Why do you think Bitcoin would not work if it has the same protections as the dollar?

A credit card transaction, as opposed to a cash or irreversible transaction, is different in that the payment processor is acting as an escrow agent.  Money in a credit card transaction is reversible until the sender can no longer reverse it.  The payment processor may extend credit to the merchant to spend those funds until that point, but that is an extra service of the escrow agent/payment processor.

There isn't a need to change how bitcoin works to use escrow.

You seem to be misunderstanding how things work now.

With all due respect, please reread what I wrote.  For the credit card processing system to work, funds to the merchant are either held in escrow or given to the merchant on credit.

If someone, say your granny, has their bank account accessed as a result of phishing, and all the money taken out, the bank will make her good.

And granny could be mugged for her cash, or her bitcoin's private keys.  Both are terrible crimes.

If you want Bitcoin to replace the dollar, you need the same functionality available to the same credulous non-technical people.  

Such a problem could be solved by companies proving an ubiquitous escrow service, like VISA/Mastercard.

So, we are in agreement that crimes should be prevented and that grannies being non-technical and not strong enough to win fist fights is no excuse to rip them off.  Good

No escrow service could work without the ability to reverse transactions.  Otherwise, you'd have people "scamming" themselves whenever they want extra money.  If you believe an escrow service will be needed, then you believe reversibility will be needed.

[amspir]

This is not about protecting the two parties in a transaction from each other!!.  This would be used to make sure your funds got to the intended destination or if your computer was hacked, you could recover the money, if you acted fast.

If this isn't about escrowed transactions, then you can already do this.  You have ownership of funds by being the sole possessor of the private keys.  If you feel that your private keys are compromised, then you transfer the funds from that address to another address/private key before the thief does.  

From the point of view of a legitimate receiver, the sender (the possessor of the private keys of the inputs to the transaction) is in control of the funds until the transaction can no longer be reversed.   How would this be different than just waiting to pay the receiver at the time when the transaction can no longer be reversed?  

[amspir]

No escrow service could work without the ability to reverse transactions.  Otherwise, you'd have people "scamming" themselves whenever they want extra money.  If you believe an escrow service will be needed, then you believe reversibility will be needed.

Here's the point:  bitcoin itself is a system of irreversible transactions.   To make a reversible transaction, you need funds to be held in escrow or through credit through an escrow agent.  An escrow agent must be accountable for the decision made to reverse a transaction.   You can't do this without an escrow agent.

Without an escrow agent, it just opens up the possibility for more scams -- I sell something on craigslist, you pay me with a reversible, non-escrowed transaction.   As soon as you get home, you reverse the transaction and I am ripped off.   No thanks.

[Cubic Earth]

This is not about protecting the two parties in a transaction from each other!!.  This would be used to make sure your funds got to the intended destination or if your computer was hacked, you could recover the money, if you acted fast.

If this isn't about escrowed transactions, then you can already do this.  You have ownership of funds by being the sole possessor of the private keys.  If you feel that your private keys are compromised, then you transfer the funds from that address to another address/private key before the thief does.  

From the point of view of a legitimate receiver, the sender (the possessor of the private keys of the inputs to the transaction) is in control of the funds until the transaction can no longer be reversed.   How would this be different than just waiting to pay the receiver at the time when the transaction can no longer be reversed?  

What if you were trying to send funds to Overstock, but an attacker spoofed the payment address?  You had control of your keys, you tried to pay Overstock, but they never got the funds?  What then?  That is an attack that this system could help to neutralize.

[RodeoX]

I do not support any reversibility other than voluntary return. Any thing like that would surely lead to exploits that make things even worse. Buyer beware is brutal, but fair.

Most of the scamming that I see here is very easy to avoid. People seem to have forgotten how to look out for themselves and think someone else is protecting their financial interest. Welcome to freedom and her bitch of a sister responsibility.

[amspir]

What if you were trying to send funds to Overstock, but an attacker spoofed the payment address?  You had control of your keys, you tried to pay Overstock, but they never got the funds?  What then?  That is an attack that this system could help to neutralize.

I find this analogous to walking to the store with cash in my pocket.   It is my responsibility to make sure I'm not pickpocketed on the way to the store.   The store, in an effort to keep pickpockets away from their customers, should be providing security to minimize this.

Those not comfortable with walking to the store with cash in pocket might consider using an trusted escrow agent to ease their minds.

[RixDollar]

I strongly disagree.

I believe that the irreversability is one of the most attractive features of bitcoin.

If you support reversability, perhaps use some other payment source like PayPal or Skrill.

[mprep]

Have you ever thought why some people hate Paypal? Reversibilty's the name of the problem.

[Cubic Earth]

Title changed.  Original post the same.

I probably shouldn't have posted in the general forum, where the quality of the discourse has clearly degenerated to a point where it is hardly worth posting.

[Keyser Soze]

If the system is optional, couldn't a hacker or thief send the stolen coins as irreversible? Unless you mean the transaction reversibility depth is set before the transaction is made, which can cause problems in itself. Assuming the former, I suppose it could help with man in the middle attacks, if it noticed quickly enough.

Edit: Of course there are other potential issues that could arise from this.

[seriouscoin]

Title changed.  Original post the same.

I probably shouldn't have posted in the general forum, where the quality of the discourse has clearly degenerated to a point where it is hardly worth posting.

Read the first reply to your OP....


Lame....

Such a waste of time discussing with you because you obviously dont understand.... Too bad some members here didnt value their time as much as i do.

Chao

[RodeoX]

Title changed.  Original post the same.

I probably shouldn't have posted in the general forum, where the quality of the discourse has clearly degenerated to a point where it is hardly worth posting.

It is a reasonable question that should be asked. No one should fault you for asking, but it has been asked for years and strong opinions have developed.

[Cubic Earth]

If the system is optional, couldn't a hacker or thief send the stolen coins as irreversible? Unless you mean the transaction reversibility depth is set before the transaction is made, which can cause problems in itself. Assuming the former, I suppose it could help with man in the middle attacks, if it noticed quickly enough.

Edit: Of course there are other potential issues that could arise from this.

Not the way I was proposing.  The first step would be to create a protected, reversible address.  Then you would fund it.  Any funds ever sent from that address would be reversible until the predetermined block limit had passed.  So if the private keys to your protected address were compromised, you would have a time window to undo it.

Only funds on addresses that were setup to be reversible would have any protection.  Regular address would subject to instant spend as is currently the case.

[BigBoy89]

bitcoin wins because it does not charge back.

if you like chargebacks... use paypal

100% agree with this post

just use paypal and leave bitcoin if you like reversible transaction

[amspir]

Not the way I was proposing.  The first step would be to create a protected, reversible address.  Then you would fund it.  Any funds ever sent from that address would be reversible until the predetermined block limit had passed.  So if the private keys to your protected address were compromised, you would have a time window to undo it.

Explain how this is different than just posting the transaction when the predetermined block limit has passed?

[Cubic Earth]

Not the way I was proposing.  The first step would be to create a protected, reversible address.  Then you would fund it.  Any funds ever sent from that address would be reversible until the predetermined block limit had passed.  So if the private keys to your protected address were compromised, you would have a time window to undo it.

Explain how this is different than just posting the transaction when the predetermined block limit has passed?

Well you can't know your transaction was received by the intended recipient until you send it and they get it.  If you send some coins, and they are not received at the intended destination, you could potentially take corrective action.  Just waiting to send a transaction would not accomplish this at all.