Author: Daniel Rice 2014-06-16 21:02:45
Published on: 2014-06-16T21:02:45+00:00
The thread discusses the possibility of a more scalable approach for instant transactions, where the user sends the name and signature of their "instant provider" every time and the merchant decides whether to ignore it or not. However, this is incompatible with providers charging extra fees for "instantness". Another approach proposed is an additional negotiation message between the merchant and wallet, where the merchant sends payment details and the wallet responds with instant information requesting if an instant transaction will be accepted. The merchant then weighs the risk based on historical data about the instant provider and the amount of the requested transaction and responds with yes or no. This approach avoids the scaling issue while also allowing for a fee to be charged only in the case where the instant transaction is supported. The thread also discusses how to encourage the maximum number of instant signature providers and avoid a monopoly. One proposal is to allow multiple instant signatures on a transaction, where a new instant provider could bootstrap their own trust by paying an already trusted provider to co-sign the same transaction. This would be useful for a new company trying to release a new wallet once the trust ring is already established, as they can build trust in their own signature till they can eventually have enough trust on their own. The discussion concludes that the best way to ensure that such alternative approaches are not needed is to write code, and if Bitcoin is robust, the market should sort it out. If it's robust for some transactions and not others, that makes for a future project for hackers to sort out.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T00:00:40.847397+00:00