Topic: If confirmation takes 10 minutes, how will I buy coffee at Starbucks? - page 2. (Read 9885 times)

Don't use Starbucks; find a independent coffeeshop that takes bitcoin and support them instead!

I need a cut and pasteable write up for why confirmation time is barely relevant with good POS implementation.   I see this question so often.

If someone can point me to a good one I will use it otherwise going to try something like the below.


-------------||||-----------------------

Isn't 10 minutes for confirmation too long?   Can't someone hack this and spend the same coins twice?

No, for most purchases simply having the transaction out in the network is sufficient.   Your address can be monitored for further spends (and sufficient funds) by the POS terminal once the initial transaction is made.   If there is no spend within a few seconds your odds of theft are minuscule.

But what if they send a transaction without a fee?   

Same story as above, your transaction can be checked for appropriate transaction fees.  As we move to new transaction fee structures the POS can monitor for what a typical transaction of that size would take to clear and apply to a block.

-------------||||-----------------------

Is this enough or is there something better? 

You misspelled 10 years

Drink slowly

I drink normal coffee not some flavored and such so i wouldnt chose starbucks, but assuming i sit and order coffee at 12:15 and i wanna pay with BTC i would pay as soon as i get my coffee, that way even if the confirmation is longer it wouldnt effect my time....

Try it, it doesn't.  The network is far more robust than that. 

Not everybody uses their bitcoins for illegal purposes. Some people want to use it as a mainstream currency, and you should be able to buy whatever you want with it.

coffee is legal, why the hell would you want to use bitcoins for that

I'm pretty sure that most retail purchases will be done by VISA, MasterCard, Discover, etc.  Or, if those guys are slow to get on the train, they'll go extinct while startups provide the same services they provide, but for bitcoin.

Those companies exist pretty much for the sole purpose of mediating transactional risks.  They also have the advantage of keeping small transactions off the blockchain (aka out of the ACH system).

Pretty hard to imagine a world where no one is doing what they do.

No, the first one received by whichever pool creates the next block wins.  If you have information otherwise, please provide source.

Yeah, the double spend isn't really a big issue. There will be some way that merchants are covered by whatever Bitcoin Processor they choose to use.

Double spend is a real problem. 10 minutes is intolerable.

It's fairly easy even for non tech-savy people to install 2 clients on different devices and send money during call at the same time.

The one with larger fees will win.

This.

cionbase and bitpay are the main ones right now. i've yet to run into a store that accepts bitcoin that doesnt use one of tehse two companies to handle their bitcoin transactions. just like credit card companies are able to cover losses due to the fee's the charge merchants ,  bitpay and coinbase are able to cover losses because of the 1% flat fee they charge merchants for all transactions. 

i think it's one of the biggest advancements in the bitcoin industry recently that not many pepole have talked about. the fact that people are able to and ARE making instant purchases at stores without having to wait for conformations. it's truly a great thing.

Have you ever heard of Bitpay or Coinbase?

the two largest 3rd party merchant vendors calculate things like this into their operations.  same way credit card companies will pay a customer back if a fraudulent charge happens. companies like bitpay and coinbase allow transactions with merchants to clear instantly even though theres a slight change they might end up footing the bill, they can do this because of the 1% flat fee they charge on all transactions just like credit card companies can pay you back if someone spent your credit card because of all the fees they get on every transaction from merchants.

of course other people in this thread already explained this more clearly than i can or just did

If they were fair and just and spent on the right things, you wouldn't need to call them taxes


Are you playing devil's advocate here, or are you using taxation as the closest synonym for a voluntary contribution (since taxation is defined only by its compulsory quality, i.e. not having to do with libertarianism)?

More like its a non issue. transactions propagate so fast there really isnt a way to double spend in a store and get away with what you bought.
 *buys coffee*
*double spends*
*clerk turns to give me coffee and sees "Double spend" on the screen.* they could then send a picture of your face to the police for 'attempted theft'. but nobody would even waste their time doing that.

or

*buys coffee*
*doesnt double spend yet*
*clerk gives me coffee*
*runs out of the store as fast as possible and trys to double spend but the transaction is ignored since the first has already propagated through the network*


People are already using this method of 0 confirmations at stores. ive yet to hear of anyone pulling off a double spend.

One bit that would help is an individual being able to allot taxes granularly instead of assuming a 'democratically appointed, either directly or by the residue of democracy' representative assessing what that tax allocation should be.

Once cash is done away with and everything is digital and integrated, the idea of 'paying tax yearly' should be eradicated and replaced by the concept of 'assigning your tax payouts yearly.'

Our billionaire friends have no problems deciding where their taxes go, via writeoff donations. someone making a living at a fast food restaurant doesn't get to choose.

50% of my taxes could be assigned by the government, the other 50% should go wherever I want. There are very little philanthropic / writeoff driven charitable giving opportunities for those in the middle/lower classes because our taxes are taken up front.

Why does the government get to decide what those unable to steer their tax dollars use it on? Even if 'stupid selfish people' decide 100% of their taxes go towards making roads better, they should end up with some damn good roads and that would naturally make them not do that in the future, or perhaps the government could limit the choices, etc.


bitcoin has proven a lot about using intermediaries as "trusted decisionmakers" ... it sucks, and they're all on the chopping block. Unfortunately, those intermediaries are the ones deciding policy so they can dig their heels in easily if they're too dumb to see the benefits and how they fit in in the future.

circular logic - taxes are that bad because of the companies that worm their way out.


its like saying "people stealing shit at stores is OK because things are too expensive (due to people stealing shit at stores)"
Yes, you can blame the price markups from wholesale to retail... but you can equally blame the theft driving the prices up.


When the company blames the thefts, the people can blame the companys markups for the initial thefts. That doesn't mean there aren't thieves.