Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

I think tvbcof means to say Bitcoin wasn't ever going to be useful for point of sales. (I assume that means Bitcoin by itself.)

In the interest of not repeating old points, this is what Hearn has to say on this: https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d

Right.  I think the people pushing full-RBF are more interested in making on-chain Bitcoin transactions less useful for point-of-sales than the often-stated goal of allowing users to "unstick" stuck transactions.  Since we can "unstick" a TX in ways that are first-seen safe, why break a system (zero-confirm TXs) that many people currently enjoy (well unless you're of the ideology that Bitcoin should only be a settlement backbone)?    

...or unless your transaction can wait for some non-trivial amount of time to confirm to the level of reliability that is necessary for it.

I don't follow.  It sounds like you think it would be a good thing to make zero-confirm transactions less secure.  Is this true?

Zero-confirm transactions are totally insecure. Use it only if you are a gambling company.

Completely not true, and again there is a large bitcoin ecommerce industry that proves you wrong.

Receivers of well formed transactions (i.e. transactions where all inputs are already confirmed, include an appropriate fee, and which are accepted by all your P2P peers [meaning you did not receive any alternative broadcasts using the same inputs]) are very secure with today's P2P rules and easy to accept for nominal amounts.

full-RBF breaks this.

I'll broadcast 2 (or even 10) transactions to different nodes(and services) at same time  and you cannot know what transacion was FIRST.
I can make it harder if I'll brodcast transactions just after block is found ... or DDOS you during this time

You fundamentally do not understand how distributed P2P networks work if you believe that.

If you broadcast two different transactions at the exact same time, then there will be disagreement among peers over which transaction was first. Some of your peers would say transaction a was first and some would say transaction b was first.

In which case you've just broken the 3rd property of well formed transactions that I listed above (i.e. accepted by all of your peers).

In your example, it is easy to see that this transaction is not well formed, is at risk of being a double spend, and is thus not accepted until it confirms in a block.

That is how zero confirm transactions are proceeded today in a "safe enough" manner.

The only method to attack a well formed zero confirm transaction is to collude with a mining pool that agrees to include a transaction double spend that was not announced to the P2P network. Your chance of success is only as good as the miner's chance of finding the next block.

This is exactly what I think about you. You are spreading nonsense after nonsense. You are living in ideal/happy world where
 - there is not cheating
 - there are not governments like in china, russia ... (the one in USA are not using CIA, FBI .. to control citiziens)
 - there are not terrorists
 - only bitcoin happy community exists MtGox, Pirate40 ... :-)

So you have no counter argument to present or explanation on how to attack a well formed transaction beyond the one example I provided, and instead just bring tin foil hat nonsense to the table. Got it.

As I wrote.

1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed

[1714011286]

1714011286

[1714011286]

1714011286

[1714011286]

1714011286

[tvbcof]

So you have no counter argument to present or explanation on how to attack a well formed transaction beyond the one example I provided, and instead just bring tin foil hat nonsense to the table. Got it.

As I wrote.

1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed

Some people cannot take 'yes' for an answer.  What can ya do?

[cypherdoc]

You fundamentally do not understand how distributed P2P networks work if you believe that.

If you broadcast two different transactions at the exact same time, then there will be disagreement among peers over which transaction was first. Some of your peers would say transaction a was first and some would say transaction b was first.

In which case you've just broken the 3rd property of well formed transactions that I listed above (i.e. accepted by all of your peers).

In your example, it is easy to see that this transaction is not well formed, is at risk of being a double spend, and is thus not accepted until it confirms in a block.

That is how zero confirm transactions are proceeded today in a perfectly safe manner.

The only method to attack a well formed zero confirm transaction is to collude with a mining pool that agrees to include a transaction double spend that was not announced to the P2P network. Your chance of success is only as good as the miner's chance of finding the next block.

Very clear explanation, rocks. 

Odalv, stop, please!

OK, I agree with you ( I'm tired :-), and I believe readers are not stupid )
1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed
2. The more mining costs the more miners will mine.
3. The bigger blocks are the less spam.
4. ... another pearls :-)

actually, i have one last question.  if your simultaneous spending tx's were a viable attack, why aren't you rich by now?

[Odalv]

You fundamentally do not understand how distributed P2P networks work if you believe that.

If you broadcast two different transactions at the exact same time, then there will be disagreement among peers over which transaction was first. Some of your peers would say transaction a was first and some would say transaction b was first.

In which case you've just broken the 3rd property of well formed transactions that I listed above (i.e. accepted by all of your peers).

In your example, it is easy to see that this transaction is not well formed, is at risk of being a double spend, and is thus not accepted until it confirms in a block.

That is how zero confirm transactions are proceeded today in a perfectly safe manner.

The only method to attack a well formed zero confirm transaction is to collude with a mining pool that agrees to include a transaction double spend that was not announced to the P2P network. Your chance of success is only as good as the miner's chance of finding the next block.

Very clear explanation, rocks. 

Odalv, stop, please!

OK, I agree with you ( I'm tired :-), and I believe readers are not stupid )
1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed
2. The more mining costs the more miners will mine.
3. The bigger blocks are the less spam.
4. ... another pearls :-)

actually, i have one last question.  if your simultaneous spending tx's were a viable attack, why aren't you rich by now?

Really did not realize till now that there are so many fools accepting ZCT. Thank you for your informations.

[rocks]

I think tvbcof means to say Bitcoin wasn't ever going to be useful for point of sales. (I assume that means Bitcoin by itself.)

In the interest of not repeating old points, this is what Hearn has to say on this: https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d

Right.  I think the people pushing full-RBF are more interested in making on-chain Bitcoin transactions less useful for point-of-sales than the often-stated goal of allowing users to "unstick" stuck transactions.  Since we can "unstick" a TX in ways that are first-seen safe, why break a system (zero-confirm TXs) that many people currently enjoy (well unless you're of the ideology that Bitcoin should only be a settlement backbone)?    

...or unless your transaction can wait for some non-trivial amount of time to confirm to the level of reliability that is necessary for it.

I don't follow.  It sounds like you think it would be a good thing to make zero-confirm transactions less secure.  Is this true?

Zero-confirm transactions are totally insecure. Use it only if you are a gambling company.

Completely not true, and again there is a large bitcoin ecommerce industry that proves you wrong.

Receivers of well formed transactions (i.e. transactions where all inputs are already confirmed, include an appropriate fee, and which are accepted by all your P2P peers [meaning you did not receive any alternative broadcasts using the same inputs]) are very secure with today's P2P rules and easy to accept for nominal amounts.

full-RBF breaks this.

I'll broadcast 2 (or even 10) transactions to different nodes(and services) at same time  and you cannot know what transacion was FIRST.
I can make it harder if I'll brodcast transactions just after block is found ... or DDOS you during this time

You fundamentally do not understand how distributed P2P networks work if you believe that.

If you broadcast two different transactions at the exact same time, then there will be disagreement among peers over which transaction was first. Some of your peers would say transaction a was first and some would say transaction b was first.

In which case you've just broken the 3rd property of well formed transactions that I listed above (i.e. accepted by all of your peers).

In your example, it is easy to see that this transaction is not well formed, is at risk of being a double spend, and is thus not accepted until it confirms in a block.

That is how zero confirm transactions are proceeded today in a "safe enough" manner.

The only method to attack a well formed zero confirm transaction is to collude with a mining pool that agrees to include a transaction double spend that was not announced to the P2P network. Your chance of success is only as good as the miner's chance of finding the next block.

This is exactly what I think about you. You are spreading nonsense after nonsense. You are living in ideal/happy world where
 - there is not cheating
 - there are not governments like in china, russia ... (the one in USA are not using CIA, FBI .. to control citiziens)
 - there are not terrorists
 - only bitcoin happy community exists MtGox, Pirate40 ... :-)

So you have no counter argument to present or explanation on how to attack a well formed transaction beyond the one example I provided, and instead just bring tin foil hat nonsense to the table. Got it.

As I wrote.

1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed

And who here besides you has made the statement that zero confirm transactions are 100% secure, no one.

As Peter said they are shades of gray. Well formed zero confirm transactions are not absolute but pretty reliable, in the same manner that 1-confirm transactions are not absolute but even more reliable and so on.

It's only malformed zero confirm transactions that are explicitly not reliable, but as explained those are easy to spot on the P2P network (and yes even a P2P network with cheaters, terrorists, Russia and China)

You should be a consultant for Bitpay and Coinbase warning them of the dangers of ZCT and how they need to stop. I'm sure they will gladly benefit from your insights. 

[cypherdoc]

   thats 13000 unconf tx's

[cypherdoc]

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Peter R]

1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed

No one is claiming that.  I'm claiming that:

   0-conf (+ RBF)   <   0-conf (as is)   <  1-conf   <   2-conf …

Where the symbol [ < ] means "less secure than."  Do you disagree with the above inequality?

If not, what is the benefit of purposely making 0-conf less secure?

[rocks]

It was BTCChina Pool that only processed 81KB of transactions. If I was a miner on them I'd move to someone else.

[cypherdoc]

You fundamentally do not understand how distributed P2P networks work if you believe that.

If you broadcast two different transactions at the exact same time, then there will be disagreement among peers over which transaction was first. Some of your peers would say transaction a was first and some would say transaction b was first.

In which case you've just broken the 3rd property of well formed transactions that I listed above (i.e. accepted by all of your peers).

In your example, it is easy to see that this transaction is not well formed, is at risk of being a double spend, and is thus not accepted until it confirms in a block.

That is how zero confirm transactions are proceeded today in a perfectly safe manner.

The only method to attack a well formed zero confirm transaction is to collude with a mining pool that agrees to include a transaction double spend that was not announced to the P2P network. Your chance of success is only as good as the miner's chance of finding the next block.

Very clear explanation, rocks. 

Odalv, stop, please!

OK, I agree with you ( I'm tired :-), and I believe readers are not stupid )
1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed
2. The more mining costs the more miners will mine.
3. The bigger blocks are the less spam.
4. ... another pearls :-)

actually, i have one last question.  if your simultaneous spending tx's were a viable attack, why aren't you rich by now?

Really did not realize till now that there are so many fools accepting ZCT. Thank you for your informations.

and even if you didn't realize this, there have probably been on the order of thousands who have tried and failed with your attack.

thanks for the non answer.

[Odalv]

rock and cypherdoc please publish your list of services with zero confirmation transaction you provide.
I'm getting mad ...... I WANT TO BUY !!!

[cypherdoc]

rock and cypherdoc please publish your list of services with zero confirmation transaction you provide.
I'm getting mad ...... I WANT TO BUY !!!

actually, back in the day, i used to do it all_the_time with my newsletter.  never a problem.

[Odalv]

rock and cypherdoc please publish your list of services with zero confirmation transaction you provide.
I'm getting mad ...... I WANT TO BUY !!!

actually, back in the day, i used to do it all_the_time with my newsletter.  never a problem.

I'm not interesting to buy your babbling  for 2 btc/month. I believe you had no problem if you received 2 btc. And I believe you had no problem if you received nothing.  -> I'll not get reach if I'll spend hours receiving your newsletter for free.

[cypherdoc]

here is a little tidbit as to why full nodes might be failing during this stress test.  it makes sense:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csnr4fi

[rocks]

rock and cypherdoc please publish your list of services with zero confirmation transaction you provide.
I'm getting mad ...... I WANT TO BUY !!!

Have you heard of this little company called BitPay, you might want to Google them. They've accepted zero confirm transaction since 2013 without issue.

We are not discussing theoretical what-if scenarios here. This is real world use of ZCT and evidence Bitcoin functions good enough here for ecommerce.
 
But you've already ignored this, you either aren't even bothering to read replies and just screaming, or are incapable of rudimentary reading comprehension.

[Odalv]

1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed

No one is claiming that.  I'm claiming that:

   0-conf (+ RBF)   <   0-conf (as is)   <  1-conf   <   2-conf …

Where the symbol [ < ] means "less secure than."  Do you disagree with the above inequality?

If not, what is the benefit of purposely making 0-conf less secure?

0-conf (+ RBF)  is as TOTALLY INSECURE as any 0-conf

[rocks]

1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed

No one is claiming that.  I'm claiming that:

   0-conf (+ RBF)   <   0-conf (as is)   <  1-conf   <   2-conf …

Where the symbol [ < ] means "less secure than."  Do you disagree with the above inequality?

If not, what is the benefit of purposely making 0-conf less secure?

0-conf (+ RBF)  is as TOTALLY INSECURE as any 0-conf

And Peter, myself, cypher and others already stated this as the original argument that 0-conf(+RBF) are insecure. We are discussing today's 0-conf (as-is), which functions good enough in the real world.

You've started to behave like TBTP

[Odalv]

rock and cypherdoc please publish your list of services with zero confirmation transaction you provide.
I'm getting mad ...... I WANT TO BUY !!!

Have you heard of this little company called BitPay, you might want to Google them. They've accepted zero confirm transaction since 2013 without issue.

We are not discussing theoretical what-if scenarios here. This is real world use of ZCT and evidence Bitcoin functions good enough here for ecommerce.
 
But you've already ignored this, you either aren't even bothering to read replies and just screaming, or are incapable of rudimentary reading comprehension.

BitPay is not "accepted zero confirm transaction since 2013" until you are a US citizen and they know who is your grandma. -> So they know who you are and they know  how to apply law.

[Erdogan]

1. Zero confirmed transactions, are the safest way how to transact with bitcoin.  100% security is confirmed

No one is claiming that.  I'm claiming that:

   0-conf (+ RBF)   <   0-conf (as is)   <  1-conf   <   2-conf …

Where the symbol [ < ] means "less secure than."  Do you disagree with the above inequality?

If not, what is the benefit of purposely making 0-conf less secure?

The antifragility. We need all the problems we can get.