Paying with Bitcoin where there's rush

[franky1]

As I said above, the main solution is to either accept zero confirmation non-RBF transactions for small values or to use Lightning.

or stick with bitcoin. and instead:
a. accept zero-confirm non rbf
b.  buy one of his giftcards as you walk/drive to their store..
c.  deposit funds into an address of a merchant upfront,
d.  use multisig with merchant upfront and then sign off on a transaction with the merchant at the cashier desk.. that broadcasts
that way you cant RBF/double spend without their signature of any possible second spend you attempt

its the same idea as your altnet.. but without all the flaws.. yep actually performed on the blockchain instead of holding onto and not broadcasting unconfirmed transactions

yep your altnet is one step worse then zero confirm transactions. because they dont even broadcast the transaction that intends to give the merchant a utxo with value dedicated to them.. (adding in all the other flaws of the altnet that can hinder the possibility of the merchant ever getting his intended utxo value)

oh and even the altnet devs have lost value in their altnet more so than the complaints of broadcast zeroconfirms ever has

[BlackHatCoiner]

Further, a 1 minute confirmation time means a large increase in the number of stale blocks, which means waiting far longer than 1 minute anyway to ensure the block you are looking at isn't replaced for a competing block at the same height.

Exactly. You should neither accept 1 confirmation as a settled transaction, especially in Dogecoin; there are lots of stale blocks. The security of each confirmation drops when the block interval decreases. I find it justified to ask more than 10 confirmations if you're moving huge amounts.

d.  use multisig with merchant upfront and then sign off on a transaction with the merchant at the cashier desk.. that broadcasts
that way you cant RBF/double spend without their signature of any possible second spend you attempt

Great, now combine this with payment channels, atomic and trustless multihop contracts in a peer-to-peer network and you've got Lightning! What you describe requires to make two on-chain transactions; one depositing my money on the multi-sig address and another withdrawing the change. I find it inefficient to transact once with two transactions.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Exactly. You should neither accept 1 confirmation as a settled transaction, especially in Dogecoin; there are lots of stale blocks. The security of each confirmation drops when the block interval decreases. I find it justified to ask more than 10 confirmations if you're moving huge amounts.

Note that even 10 Dogecoin confirmations are not nearly as secure as a single Bitcoin confirmation given the far reduced hashrate of Dogecoin. If you are transacting an amount you would want to wait for 6 Bitcoin transactions for, then you should be waiting for several hundred Dogecoin confirmations.

use multisig with merchant upfront and then sign off on a transaction with the merchant at the cashier desk.

Great, now combine this with payment channels, atomic and trustless multihop contracts in a peer-to-peer network and you've got Lightning!

I ignore franky1 in threads like these since he just repeats the same nonsense over and over, but this quote is actually hilarious. So his solution is to open a channel multi-sig wallet with the merchant ahead of time, and then after we have decided on how much money each of us is going to take out of that channel wallet, we broadcast a final settlement withdrawal transaction? What a revolutionary idea! What about, to make things even easier, we leave the channel wallet open between shopping trips, so we don't have to open a new one each time? Amazing!

We should come up a snappy name for this idea. I propose "Thunder".

[BlackHatCoiner]

Note that even 10 Dogecoin confirmations are not nearly as secure as a single Bitcoin confirmation given the far reduced hashrate of Dogecoin.

I wonder how many other factors can be included into this. For instance, could we measure the decentralization of each hashrate to conclude how hard it'd be for an insider to perform a 51% attack? Or to go one step further and say, who the hell cares about Dogecoin? 

We should come up a snappy name for this idea. I propose "Thunder".

Lol. Why thunder, though? It takes more than an on-chain transaction. It doesn't happen instantly. The problem remains; the transaction isn't settled immediately. If only we could come up with a solution to this. 

[franky1]

d.  use multisig with merchant upfront and then sign off on a transaction with the merchant at the cashier desk.. that broadcasts
that way you cant RBF/double spend without their signature of any possible second spend you attempt

Great, now combine this with payment channels, atomic and trustless multihop contracts in a peer-to-peer network and you've got Lightning!

trustless? (pfft)*
yea combine that with not paying into the merchant direct(pftt)
but instead locking excessive funds up with some random person days before. then having to lock up more funds with another random person incase the first person is offline.
then having to switch off all the autopilot and public announcement defaults to hide from having your liquidity raided before you can spend it yourself..
and then have to plan which bunch of random people to hop through to hopefully find a link to the merchant you intend to use.
oh and then hope along this route none of them are *'turbo' faking channel balance.. to cause issues for you or the merchant

what you describe of having to have a few channels set up with more balance then needed locked up earlier then needed. and the HOPE that the merchant might be involved in the intricate web of hops when needed.. that is what i call inefficient.
heck even your altnet favoured devs have hit that wall hard, and said how the hop-route model is a both chicken and egg failure. it only works if enough idiots are conned into using the network, but then later fails again because everyone is then using the network leaching out the liquidity of possible paths.. thats why they are moving more in directions of the hub-spoke model of directly contracting with the merchants(albeit they still want to be MSB middlemen hubs inbetween ofcourse which has its own flaws)

as for finality/settlement..
especially when none of them are then broadcasting to confirm the payment to settle up. middlemen can then play games punishing each other in a chargeback scam game of fastest scammer wins.. along with all the rebalance games inbetween to empty out liquidity..

seriously. you seem to be stuck in the 2018 utopian glossy advert, and not actually done your research on how impractical your altnet is and how many ways it can be abused for people that just want to buy their lunch on a whim, without anything more then a 10 minute plan during lunchbreak.
(or maybe you do know how many ways it can be abused and thats your actual intent)

your altnet only works sometimes, if you are set up hours/days before hand with excessive funds pre-locked to increase chances of possible paths(still with no guarantees). and then even if you find a path there is no finality to the payment without the risks of middlemen meddling with the system

i prefer what bitcoin was designed for. paying the intended recipient without the silly meddle men 'hop-n-hope' games
(i purposefully spelled it meddle)

What you describe requires to make two on-chain transactions; one depositing my money on the multi-sig address and another withdrawing the change. I find it inefficient to transact once with two transactions.

yea i know you dont like settling up and finalising. i know you prefer people to lock up and stay locked up so you can play games with their balance. but thats not bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

but locking funds up with some random person days before [...] then having to lock up more funds [...]  then have to plan to hop through to hopefully find a link to the merchant you intend to use.

Yes. I like the entire process. I find it impressive.

oh and then hope along this route none of them are *'turbo' faking channel balance.. to cause issues for you or the merchant

May I assume you're referring to this? Is it yet implemented? As far as I can see, no. (And it's not going to be)

on how impractical LN is for people that just want to buy their lunch on a whim, without anything more then a 10 minute plan during lunchbreak.

You're saying that Lightning is impractical while you're also suggesting to use a multi-sig between the buyer and the cashier. C'mon.

i prefer what bitcoin was designed for. paying the intended recipient without the silly meddle men 'hop-n-hope' games

Well, guess what: Bitcoin, alone, cannot scale. It's inefficient. You don't have to state it 100 times that you want to buy a coffee, or to pay your Netflix subscription, or to pay your web hosting bills. And you know that's true, that's why you propose bigger blocks. Allow me to stop it right there as it becomes completely off-topic.

but thats not bitcoin.

Maybe that is not down to you to define.

[franky1]

Well, guess what: Bitcoin, alone, cannot scale. It's inefficient. You don't have to state it 100 times that you want to buy a coffee, or to pay your Netflix subscription, or to pay your web hosting bills. And you know that's true, that's why you propose bigger blocks. Allow me to stop it right there as it becomes completely off-topic.

there is more to it than your propaganda.. but thanks for your admission that YOU think bitcoin doesnt work. but thats your opinion..
we know you dont like bitcoin. you made that obvious in many topics.

the capitalist politics of not allowing scaling is whats holding bitcoin back. scaling is not the issue, its the solution.. but again you dont want bitcoin scaling. because you prefer getting people to stop using bitcoin for daily use stuff

go on. admit it.
you started this topic pretending to want to know how to buy daily use stuff at a supermarket with bitcoin.. pretending that was your intent.. , but now you want to say bitcoin cant do that but your favoured other network can..