Should we promote acceptance of "zero-conf transactions"?

[Betwrong]

Bitcoin adoption could start growing exponentially once people realized that BTC can be used as money in any place. Right now this is not the case because you either have to pay a pretty high transaction fee, from $2 to $6, or you should wait for a long time for your transaction to be confirmed. That's what most people think, and what is more important, that's what merchants think, refusing to accept payments in BTC.

I think the solution lies in accepting the so called "zero-conf transactions", only the fee, of course, should not be set at zero. Right now, for example(and keep in mind that this is not an advantageous period for such an example), you can pay as little as 2 satoshis/byte for your transaction to be confirmed within 3-4 hours. It means 672 sats, or $0.076, for the median transaction size of 224 bytes.

Will some people try to abuse it? Surely. But with the due process of law, they will be treated as counterfeiters, with all the consequences. So, the vast majority of people will not even think of trying to double spend, just like not many of us think of robbing a bank or counterfeiting money.

Thus, the proverbial "you can't pay for a cup of coffee with Bitcoin" will become obsolete. Anyone can afford spending extra 8 cents, and no one would risk their freedom for trying to steal a cup of coffee.

Please, share your thoughts on this.

TL;DR: I think the key to wider BTC adoption is in accepting zero-conf transactions.

[gentlemand]

If I were a regular acceptee it's not something I'd encourage or put up with.

Going forward there'll no doubt be phases where low fee transactions will never go through in time and the more people there are the more attempts there'll be to cheat others. I'd expect many people who would never take the piss in real life would be inclined to give it a try on the internet.

Instead of exposing myself to that I'd be looking to accept other shitcoins and stuff like Coinbase internal wallet transfers.

[Charles-Tim]

One of the solution to reducing transaction fee is the lightning network, but many people are not using it for now because it is still under development, if fully developed, it can be used for cheap payments like paying for coffee etc. These should even be the main purpose of lightning network (to make payment of small amount of bitcoin)

Another is the use of segwit (bech32) addresses, with the use of such address and sending to such address, transactions fee is reduced in relation to the transaction weight. But this may not be satisfying enough.

There could also be other development in the future that can be used to reduce the transaction fee.

[Ucy]

I guess zero confirmation means no verification by "verifiers".
What are the disadvantages of that^(no verification of transactions)? Is it worth the risk? How do you prevent/punish things like doublespending & other abuse that mostly occur due lack of verification or lack of proper verification? I think it's better to prevent abuses with a more robust decentralized/verification system.
I think if you have a different reward model that sufficiently incentive verifiers for their hard work, tiny/small fees and fast confirmation wouldn't be a problem. But you'll need to build something more advanced and well built to make this possible, efficient, easy, sustainable etc

[joniboini]

No. If merchant allows it then the risk of double-spending or accepting bitcoin when the rate changes drastically is higher. Nobody is going to love that. As mentioned earlier, promoting LN is a better idea. While the setup is not as easy as it sounds, I believe it is justified if you want fast but secure (at least to some extent) transactions.

[Jating]

As far as I know, only gambling sites are accepting "zero-conf transactions".

However, if this is going to be accepted universally, we all very familiar with double spend and this will open a pandora's box, just saying.

[fiulpro]

Bitcoin adoption could start growing exponentially once people realized that BTC can be used as money in any place. Right now this is not the case because you either have to pay a pretty high transaction fee, from $2 to $6, or you should wait for a long time for your transaction to be confirmed. That's what most people think, and what is more important, that's what merchants think, refusing to accept payments in BTC.

I think the solution lies in accepting the so called "zero-conf transactions", only the fee, of course, should not be set at zero. Right now, for example(and keep in mind that this is not an advantageous period for such an example), you can pay as little as 2 satoshis/byte for your transaction to be confirmed within 3-4 hours. It means 672 sats, or $0.076, for the median transaction size of 224 bytes.

Will some people try to abuse it? Surely. But with the due process of law, they will be treated as counterfeiters, with all the consequences. So, the vast majority of people will not even think of trying to double spend, just like not many of us think of robbing a bank or counterfeiting money.

Thus, the proverbial "you can't pay for a cup of coffee with Bitcoin" will become obsolete. Anyone can afford spending extra 8 cents, and no one would risk their freedom for trying to steal a cup of coffee.

Please, share your thoughts on this.

TL;DR: I think the key to wider BTC adoption is in accepting zero-conf transactions.

I do agree with you on the fact that the fee should not be set at zero.
I do know one thing :

Since Bitcoins is not centralized and there are numerous small miners working ... Their own income is dependent on the fee that we pay for the transactions.

We cannot get it done securely for free , even if we talk about lightning network:
-It did not demand zero fee but fee was exceptionally low
-Its not safe.

_*_

No. If merchant allows it then the risk of double-spending or accepting bitcoin when the rate changes drastically is higher. Nobody is going to love that. As mentioned earlier, promoting LN is a better idea. While the setup is not as easy as it sounds, I believe it is justified if you want fast but secure (at least to some extent) transactions.

For sure lightning network is equipped to handle fast transactions but before going on any conclusions we should always remember how it's not safe and therefore I do believe we still have some years left before we can actually have a safer version of it.

_*_

I think the solution lies in accepting the so called "zero-conf transactions", only the fee, of course, should not be set at zero. Right now, for example(and keep in mind that this is not an advantageous period for such an example), you can pay as little as 2 sat

Please, share your thoughts on this.

TL;DR: I think the key to wider BTC adoption is in accepting zero-conf transactions.

I do believe we should have a upgradation where we cannot cancel the transaction , the ones which are made for any business reason , like: coffee and the person paying and one paid to , should receive a digital receipt of some kind.

Maybe smart contracts can be upgraded and then made into a more simpler version? Since this would not only be easy but also use but also enable some next level security  but then again we have to fight against Centralization amongst all of this.

But more than that am scared about how some people would use these unconfirmed transactions being accepted. For sure some hackers might find a way.

[figmentofmyass]

I think the solution lies in accepting the so called "zero-conf transactions", only the fee, of course, should not be set at zero.

it's too dangerous, unless the transaction is non-RBF and has an extremely high fee well beyond what is reasonably required for reliable confirmation. otherwise the chances of double spending or the network not confirming the transaction are too high.

instead of seeking out instant or nearly instant transactions (high fee, next block confirmation), i think consumers should aim for eg 1-hour confirmation. get used to the idea of waiting for settlement. when everyone is racing to get into the next block, it really drives up the fee market in an exponential way.

Will some people try to abuse it? Surely. But with the due process of law, they will be treated as counterfeiters, with all the consequences.

with bitcoin's electronic and cross-border nature, i don't think those guarantees are good enough.

bitrefill was one of the only companies accepting zero-confirmation transactions. they recently stopped.

[mk4]

Thought about this in the past, and I somewhat agree, as long as the fee is low but still passable(e.g. 5 sats/b). Of course though, this is for cheap merchant transactions like a $4 coffee and such(who the heck would double spend $4?). For bigger transactions like in restaurants, of course merchants wouldn't want risking the loss of $30+ unless probably they have your identity.

I don't think we get to use this kind of "acceptance" though; Lightning is a lot better now compared to when I initially thought of this as a solution. Phoenix Wallet is great! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250677

Interesting topic though. +1

[Artemis3]

Its not going to happen, at least not with people you don't implicitly trust in the first place. The danger of double spending isn't worth it. Indeed LN could be a solution, or simply pay in advance, sort of opening a credit/tab with the merchant/shop whatever.

I don't agree with promoting these as it will encourage scammers and people will blame it on Bitcoin.

[Tipstar]

Even if we get used to it, it would be procrastinating our problems rather than solving it. It could turn into a growing trouble. I'd rather use bitcoin as it is than to use it for paying my taxi or coffee. There are things like lightning project that are trying to achieve the same though freezing some coins and issuing equivalent digital tokens. Other wrapped bitcoin solutions are also getting popular which are a better take to that solution.

[yazher]

One of the solution to reducing transaction fee is the lightning network, but many people are not using it for now because it is still under development, if fully developed, it can be used for cheap payments like paying for coffee etc. These should even be the main purpose of lightning network (to make payment of small amount of bitcoin)

Another is the use of segwit (bech32) addresses, with the use of such address and sending to such address, transactions fee is reduced in relation to the transaction weight. But this may not be satisfying enough.

There could also be other development in the future that can be used to reduce the transaction fee.

Right now, Lightning Network is the only way to promotes BTC payments with lower transaction fees. Unless the exchanges we used is partnered with the stores we always wanted to go. Like we what we have with our local exchanges. Like for example shopee is somehow partnered with coins.ph where when buy things there you don't have to worry about the extra charges the rate is always 1:1 when shopping there. It's the same with some online game stores. If the other stores are likethis, then promoting it to others would have been easy for us.

[UserU]

As far as I know, only gambling sites are accepting "zero-conf transactions".

However, if this is going to be accepted universally, we all very familiar with double spend and this will open a pandora's box, just saying.

Which one? All the ones I play on require at least 1 confirmation.

[tranthidung]

I think the solution lies in accepting the so called "zero-conf transactions", only the fee, of course, should not be set at zero. Right now, for example(and keep in mind that this is not an advantageous period for such an example), you can pay as little as 2 satoshis/byte for your transaction to be confirmed within 3-4 hours. It means 672 sats, or $0.076, for the median transaction size of 224 bytes.

Zero-fee transactions belong to past story and nowadays, it rarely happens and only happen if you have miner friends. So most of times, it comes from mining pool owners. The fall or nearly disappearance of zero-fee transactions is a proof of better bitcoin adoption.

It is not a full list but you see some examples on who are miners of zero-fee transactions.

In last 24 hours, there are opportunities to move bitcoin at 1 - 2 satoshis/ (v)byte. 8 - 9 hours ago, mempool was clear again in last few days.

Thus, the proverbial "you can't pay for a cup of coffee with Bitcoin" will become obsolete. Anyone can afford spending extra 8 cents, and no one would risk their freedom for trying to steal a cup of coffee.

With Lightning network, you can but the problem is adoption of lightning network.

I think the key to wider BTC adoption is in accepting zero-conf transactions.

I don't think so. A better stable fee is enough to increase adoption besides better knowledge on how bitcoin transaction works & how transactions get confirmations.

[figmentofmyass]

Thought about this in the past, and I somewhat agree, as long as the fee is low but still passable(e.g. 5 sats/b). Of course though, this is for cheap merchant transactions like a $4 coffee and such(who the heck would double spend $4?).

imagine being able to easily double spend every low value transaction back to yourself. you don't think anyone would take advantage?

if it can be exploited, it will be.

I don't think we get to use this kind of "acceptance" though; Lightning is a lot better now compared to when I initially thought of this as a solution.

lightning adoption is sadly moving at a glacial pace. the liquidity just isn't there, and won't be for quite a while.

what i'd really like to see is boring stuff---transaction optimization, fee optimization, segwit support, batching. it's not glamorous, but if exchanges would just stop unnecessarily clogging the network, i think it would buy us considerable time re scaling.

[buwaytress]

As far as I know, only gambling sites are accepting "zero-conf transactions".

However, if this is going to be accepted universally, we all very familiar with double spend and this will open a pandora's box, just saying.

And a few other services, like I've seen ad packages and minor buys, they are accepted and good enough for bookings but delivery only on confirmation. Same as gambling sites, free to use your account balance that updates as soon as txs are detected but you won't be able to withdraw anything until input confirms.

That said, also seen more sites require 1 confirmation because of double spend headaches.

On the other hand, sites requiring what used to be the standard 6 are now lowering to 2 or even 1.

I always accept unconfirmed when from a repeat user I know and trust. Maybe sites can implement a sort of trust setting that increased with time and deposit frequency and volume. The more trusted you are the closer to 0 confirmation or even higher percentages of "unlocked" balance from 0 confirms.

Or people will be pushed to go LN (that somewhat takes care of trust at 2nd layer?).

[mk4]

imagine being able to easily double spend every low value transaction back to yourself. you don't think anyone would take advantage?

if it can be exploited, it will be.

I definitely don't disagree; but the incentive of people attempting a double-spend would greatly drop(in my opinion) if the transaction is done in person(hence I chose the coffee example). Attempting to double spend to get back $4-5 while risking jail time due to your identity being exposed(assuming the shop has a CCTV camera) isn't simply worth it in my opinion. But idk, there are a lot of a-holes out there so I definitely could be wrong. 🤷‍♂️

lightning adoption is sadly moving at a glacial pace. the liquidity just isn't there, and won't be for quite a while.

what i'd really like to see is boring stuff---transaction optimization, fee optimization, segwit support, batching. it's not glamorous, but if exchanges would just stop unnecessarily clogging the network, i think it would buy us considerable time re scaling.

True, and it's definitely frustrating. Binance, one of the biggest exchanges, doesn't even have SegWit.

[kryptqnick]

I agree that supporting zero confirmation transactions is a good solution. I've never seen a transaction not getting confirmed, and average people probably would not bother finding out how to abuse the system (especially in case of it being a crime and people being actually punished for committing it). Besides, it's not hard for merchants to minimize the risk by putting a limit. I mean, say, zero-conf transactions for payments up to $50 and 1 confirmation for more expensive purchases.
This all might not work, but it's worth some research to determine how often people would abuse it on average.
As for the LN, there are groups of people who'll never use it (and they might be the majority given the popularity of the LN), and I don't think a controversial thing like that could go mainstream.

[pawanjain]

Well I think the Lightning Network was built to solve that problem. The high bitcoin transaction fees is quite expected in future considering that the price will increase too much. The Lightning Network is the only possible solution to solve this problem as of now and I think it will.
Though I am not sure if the LN is stable right now, I think as people start using it regularly it will get more and more stable.

[dothebeats]

I don't think it is a welcome solution to a temporary problem that is only happening when there are massive spikes in the mempool. Several initiatives have already been put into place to address this issue that we are facing every time a massive price rise is happening. Though not everyone is into it, or like the ideas that were proposed, still one can't deny the fact that those remain useful if utilized and developed the right way, such as the lightning network. Zero-conf transactions being accepted puts us at a greater risk of countless double spends and merchants not receiving payments, instead of fixing the 'problem.' The intention is good, though, just that the solution proposed is not really effective and will do more harm than good.