Author: Matt Whitlock 2015-06-19 16:46:35
Published on: 2015-06-19T16:46:35+00:00
The concept of "intent to pay" is almost useless when it comes to Bitcoin transactions. The fact that someone intends to do something does not necessarily mean they will follow through with it. There needs to be a clear non-repudiation mechanism in place, rather than relying on assumptions.This sentiment was echoed by Eric Lombrozo in a communication on June 19, 2015. He states that if we want to ensure non-repudiation in the protocol, we must explicitly define one, instead of assuming that signed transactions are proof of intent to pay. Matt Whitlock challenges this assumption, asking why fraud should be assumed as the default, and suggests that the null hypothesis should be the default when there is no information available about the transaction's legitimacy. The discussion highlights the need for more zero-confirmation transactions to be reversed or double-spent, as many Bitcoin users still believe that accepting zero-conf transactions is safe. It is evident that harsh lessons in reality are required to correct this belief.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T23:44:06.247800+00:00