TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Stop Saying Bitcoin Transactions Aren’t Reversible

178 点作者 tlo超过 11 年前

19 条评论

ChuckMcM超过 11 年前
Sigh. The author misses the point.<p>Amex can tell a Bank which is analgous to the BitCoin Wallet in this case, to move your money from it into some other Bank, whether you agree or not based on your agreement with Amex and the Bank&#x27;s agreement with Amex. Nobody can &#x27;force&#x27; a BitCoin wallet to transfer funds without the express permission and co-operation of the person who has the wallet&#x27;s secret key.<p>So in the example, seller and buyer agree on an escrow agent, seller sends merch, buyer says they got it, transaction <i>completes</i>, but if the buy <i>then</i> discovers that the transaction was fraudulent [1] then there is no way for them to &quot;force&quot; the seller to give them back their money or, in the parlance of payments markets, &quot;reverse&quot; the transaction. Can&#x27;t do it unless the seller initiates a new transaction to send you the funds back, and if they don&#x27;t or won&#x27;t, you are out of luck.<p>[1] (say only the top layer of kilos were cocaine and the layers below that were just corn starch)
评论 #6853044 未加载
评论 #6852841 未加载
评论 #6854166 未加载
评论 #6862820 未加载
评论 #6853741 未加载
vacri超过 11 年前
This is not &#x27;reversibility&#x27;. It&#x27;s a go&#x2F;no-go system, basically the same as an escrow. The article is wrong in saying it&#x27;s not escrow - the justification used is &quot;the independent party might sod off with the money&quot;; that is a downside to current escrow services when they go wrong, not the actual escrow function itself. Multisig offers the same basic function as an escrow: an independent third party signs off on the payment or the cancelling of it.<p>So, once a payment has been made, how does multisig <i>reverse</i> the payment, as the article title promises?
评论 #6852886 未加载
评论 #6852967 未加载
socialist_coder超过 11 年前
This is great. I had read about the M of N multi-signature support before but from what I understood, it was half baked and not supported at all. I&#x27;m glad to hear that it&#x27;s usable.<p>Is there built in support for paying the mediator a percent or fixed fee from the transaction or is it expected the buyer or seller would just pay them in a separate transaction?<p>I paid for an asic bitcoin miner using bitcoins and after 10 months of non-delivery I really wanted to just get my money back but then I realized I couldn&#x27;t. I had been so accustomed to being protected by credit card chargebacks and bank reversals that I just didn&#x27;t think about a bitcoin payment as being non reversible.<p>It actually made me really cautious about paying for ANYTHING on the internet with bitcoin because it is so easy for the seller to rip you off.
评论 #6852863 未加载
评论 #6852834 未加载
jseims超过 11 年前
I find this title misleading.<p>What this post describes is a 2-of-3 multisig, which adds further encumbrances in constructing a valid transaction.<p>But any transaction, once broadcast, is irreversible.
评论 #6853087 未加载
评论 #6852386 未加载
评论 #6852582 未加载
评论 #6852618 未加载
maaku超过 11 年前
If I send coins to an M-of-N multisignature output, I can&#x27;t economically back out once it&#x27;s confirmed. In finance we have a special word for that kind of transaction: irrevocable.<p>Stop Making Misleading Headlines That Aren&#x27;t True.
评论 #6852237 未加载
sfjailbird超过 11 年前
Not technically related, but wouldn&#x27;t any bitcoin transaction be covered by consumer protection rules anyway? Like if I had paid cash in a shop?<p>I pay a certain amount into a seller&#x27;s publicized bitcoin wallet and I have a receipt from the seller explaining what I bought, the agreed amount, terms, etc. Same as a cash transaction?
评论 #6853223 未加载
评论 #6854427 未加载
pesenti超过 11 年前
What&#x27;s the protection against double spending given that the transaction isn&#x27;t yet broadcast? Imagine that I am the buyer and as soon as I receive the goods I double spend what was on my key. If the third party signs the transaction, wont it fail because the funds will already be spent?
评论 #6852458 未加载
评论 #6852515 未加载
评论 #6852440 未加载
hrjet超过 11 年前
This is nice; I hadn&#x27;t heard about m-of-n txns earlier.<p>But on the con side, unlimited, distributed arbitrators may not work out in practice. The more the number of arbitrators, the smaller the intersection set of arbitrators that are trusted by two unrelated parties.
评论 #6852592 未加载
trekky1700超过 11 年前
A multisign service like this would be very difficult to make worthwhile. On small transaction, it would be hard to justify doing an investigation for a rate that would be worthwhile to the parties involved. It works well for Visa because Visa&#x27;s already handling everything. Having these investigation services encourages people to use Visa, due to the peace of mind. It comes with it. With this type of service, you have to seek it out, pay for it separately and pay enough that this party will actually do an investigation. Obviously, it would have to work like insurance, were a majority of people aren&#x27;t being scammed, but it&#x27;s a difficult business model to comprehend.
jluxenberg超过 11 年前
The Bitcoin ledger doesn&#x27;t provide credit. There&#x27;s nothing stoping someone from offering a credit account (e.g. a consumer credit card) denominated in Bitcoin.
评论 #6852666 未加载
评论 #6852318 未加载
logfromblammo超过 11 年前
Even a 2-of-2 transaction would work, without any arbitrator, if both buyer and seller place additional funds at risk and specify a verifiably neutral means to sacrifice funds in a non-destructive way. This could be as funding the jackpot of an automatic lottery, giving to the EFF, or as a prize added to the next block mined--any transaction that is verifiably not controllable by either party.<p>The seller commits the sale price in bitcoins. The buyer commits double the sale price. If both agree the sale was good, the seller gets what the buyer committed, and the buyer gets what the seller committed. If both do not agree, the entire amount goes to the verifiably neutral address, or becomes a windfall for the next block miner.<p>If the buyer cheats by accepting the goods and rejecting the transaction, he pays double the sale price for it. The seller is twice as screwed as usual. If the seller cheats by failing to deliver, he loses the cost of the item, and the buyer is twice as screwed as usual.<p>Normal transaction: There is a Nash equilibrium for both parties reneging. You cannot buy or sell with confidence unless you have a retaliation strategy, like chargebacks and blacklists.<p>Bonded transaction: The only Nash equilibrium is at both parties being honest.
评论 #6857043 未加载
tlrobinson超过 11 年前
I agree, though he&#x27;s using a different meaning of &quot;transaction&quot; than is normally used in Bitcoin. I&#x27;d call it &quot;payment&quot; or something.<p>It&#x27;s kind of like saying IP isn&#x27;t a reliable transport protocol, which is true, but a reliable transport like TCP can be built on top of it.<p>Bitcoin <i>transactions</i> aren&#x27;t reversible, but <i>payments</i> can be.
SilasX超过 11 年前
Dourado is right -- but only in the same sense that physical cash transactions &quot;aren&#x27;t reversible&quot;.<p>Which is to say that:<p>a) Once the transfer is made (of physical cash or bitcoins), then only a big show of force against the right people can reverse it.<p>b) But you can still layer an escrow particle on top of bitcoins and physical cash to extend the window of (non-forced) reversibilility.<p>It&#x27;s still meaningful to say that bitcoin transactions in themselves, per the protocol, are irreversible.<p>(And it&#x27;s still stupid to promote Bitcoin on the false, flaky grounds that somehow makes chargebacks impossible, even if the parties agree to enable them.)
gesman超过 11 年前
Stop saying that someone should stop saying anything
TheRubyist超过 11 年前
Seems like Bitcoin doesn&#x27;t have lots of tools to be considered as reliable payment tool for every possible scnerio in which current currencies are being used without issues. I&#x27;m wondering how this and other informations could impact on bitcoin price in the future
mmaunder超过 11 年前
The point the article is making is that: Saying &quot;Bitcoin transactions aren&#x27;t reversible&quot; and then using that as a premise for a &quot;well it&#x27;s fucked before getting out the gate&quot; argument is bullshit. Reversible transactions will emerge with very little friction because the currency has the m-of-n feature and there&#x27;s a clear business model for service providers to be the trusted third party.
dzshx超过 11 年前
it&#x27;s called escrow service
jczhang超过 11 年前
lol somebody listens to KCRW...
whitcrrd超过 11 年前
bitcoin transactions aren&#x27;t reversible.