Topic: Undo button for transactions - page 3. (Read 769 times)

If that will going to happen, it would be great for all of us who are always having online transaction, there are many people who lost their money because if you had already sent the money then you can't do something to return it to you anymore, there are man victims of that having wrong BTC wallet to send and it will be transferred to other wallet, this thing will be less if there would be undo button on it, but I am wondering if this is really possible, I think it's hard for them to develop this kind of feature especially if the transaction happens so fast.
Indeed, I also doubt that having an undo button would be possible to have on some online transactions, great suggestion to have double-checking of recipients' wallet addresses.

Not everyone is like you, mistakes will surely be made. I get that the OP worries that there might be things that will go south when this feature becomes prevalent, I have seen this kind of features in games that lets you scam people scot free of their wrongdoing, this feature is a double edged sword and that worries me the most because if there are people who makes mistake then there is surely people who will have a malicious intent.

I would rather do it manually than just pressing the "Undo" button. It only takes a short while to manually verify everything.

What I am doing is that on my desktop and mobile device when sending Bitcoin, I usually spend time looking at the first and last letters/numbers to see if they are a match or not.

I always double or triple check before sending Bitcoin, Ethereum or any other tokens.

Am I missing something or is this basically a quite crappy replacement of the "Replace-By-Fee" function some wallets like Electrum have, but non-trustless and if RBF had a timer for you to cancel the tx at any point? I guess RBF could be implemented in such a way to be used as a "tx cancelling" function with a very simple 2-step process and, in the end, you do not even need any third party account to do so.

there are a couple of serious problems here:
1. it introduces centralization where there were none since the user and the receiver both will depend on a centralized company.
2. that centralization is also the enemy of privacy of both the user and the receiver since they now have to log into a centralized shady company to send/receive bitcoin which will definitely record their IP and digital fingerprint alongside their transactions and all addresses.
3. last and the most important is that it doesn't even solve the problem it set out to solve (human error). the user can still send coins from the "safe address" to a wrong but similar looking address and receiver can also still make the mistake of thinking that similar looking address is his.

---

a much simpler but a lot better solution would be a wallet that has some sort of secure channel for communication between the two parties. for example it could use PGP where the user adds the pubkey of the receiver (utilizing Web of Trust) and then receiver sends his address in a PGP signed message which his wallet checks its authenticity before letting user make any payments to it.
this could also happen offline, for example the raw transaction to be signed could have the PGP signature instead of an empty scriptsig which the offline wallet uses to verify the receiving address then signs the transaction.

in this design no centralized shady service is needed and everything happens 100% peer to peer and is a lot safer.

This is essentially not an undo button as the funds have not been sent yet, although I think an additional layer or two of confirmation would highly lessen a lot of human errors which are mostly failure to double-check addresses.

Just the same, Kirobo's novel feature could address erroneous transactions which arise from using an old address which turned out to be not anymore accessible by the recipient.  

Doubling checking (twice or thrice) is somewhat important rather than to have an undo button. Besides, almost all wallets have final confirmation before it sends to the other address in which this time we can think and see if there is a mistake on the address we are about to send.
Unless that undo button will help you back your money even though it was sent already to the wrong address.

Undo button is mostly likely not possible because the transaction is already recorded in the Blockchain ledger that is irreversible unless you have very huge mining power, but that could be considered as 51% attack.
I dont know how they done it but most probably the "Undo Button" is not going to work and fake.

Even i was wondering what they are talking about, may be these are solutions for lazy ass people or old people and people with disability or people who are careless but majority of the users just need to verify and double verify before sending the transaction and if you are really lazy in copy pasting then most or all of the bitcoin wallets has QR code function and you do not need a third party to hold our funds.

After reading op, your question is the best reply for this ambiguis feature.
Did the creator of this feature think about the scam possibilities that can happen because of this?
Irreversible transactions are one of the greatest options in the bitcoin protocole, so anybody thinking to cross over it, is a potential scammer.

What's with the deal on this undo button when you can go look straight and spend a few seconds looking at the address where you wanna send it? Electrum itself has this kind of putting your password first before sending so it will make you think twice if you are sending the amount to the correct address. Who's idiot that's gonna send straight their money without looking where it should go? I think this is beyond human error if that's going to happen, I mean could be drunk or something?

It shouldn't work like that. Even there is an undo button, it is better to process manually, not automatically. Automatic transaction cancellation will lead a manipulation on buying or end with scamming the seller. Also, there should be terms and conditions to be allowed for cancellation or undo. There should be a time limit, so people cannot undo anytime. In this way, there is no one scamming others like the example you stated above.

The problem with the undo button on the transactions is that lot of people could use it to scam other users. Let's say you buy an iPad and you pay with bitcoin, if there was a undo button you can push it after buying the ipad. and end with the ipad and the money back.

And the main problem with the chargeback is the abuse while buying money. What happen if you buy 5 ETH and then change back the bitcoins. You would easy double your money.

To implement a feature like this you need someone to validate what transactions are real and what transactions are fake, and that is impossible to implement on a decentralized project.

This should be the sure way to handle thus and not using complicated logic. The processes involved in this findings from Israel are much that we can't comprehend easily. I. An also see the issue of security with the way they handle the undo button transactions. Personally, anytime I want to execute transactions from my wallet, I always ensure before broadcasting I do double check before finally releasing the transaction to the recipients wallet. This is as simple as A & B, so why the hard way.

I am talking about newbies that don't know anything about crypto addresses.
Wallet address book is not third party.
Just let someone send you his address, then you save it in your wallet address book, and then send coins from there.
Much lower % of mistake that way.

Double checking an address would literally take a couple of seconds to do and depending on the device you're on, you can open two tabs and compare both addresses directly, rather than having to check the first and last characters.
Using Bitcoin comes with responsibility as the individual decide to be their own bank.

A third party service to facilitate transactions would come with challenges as the system is no longer trustless and you have to depend on them in addition to the bitcoin network.

I assume they did this so you don't have to lock up entire UTXOs. If I have an output of 1 BTC, and I use this method to sign and encrypt a transaction to you for 0.02 BTC, for example, then the other 0.98 BTC can't be spent until you claim your 0.02 or else it renders the original transaction invalid. It also gives a clear way to "cancel" a transaction, by sending the coins from the "safe address" back to the original address. I do agree the whole set up is needlessly complicated, though.

Any good wallet which lets you sign a transaction and then save it rather than immediately broadcasting it could do this.

There's also room for this to be abused. If you send me a password, I can claim the password didn't work and you must have made a typo. So you make a second transaction and send me the password, and then I claim both transactions at once if you have forgotten to cancel your first one.

Very complicated.
Much easier solution would be to have some easy way to double check and confirm address of recipient before sending.
One way would also be to save this address in wallet addressbook before sending it.

Sending coins to your own address is really redundant, especially at the times of high fees, why not just mark existing outspent outputs on a wallet level as "safe outputs" and use them for this feature. It's also possible to cut the middleman and make some software that takes payment request, creates signed transaction and then the user sends unbroadcasted transaction to the merchant, who validates it again and broadcasts if it's all good.

But even now you can just a use bitcoin: urls to avoid copypasting addresses if that is the problem.

And I think most of the time people do transactions by mistake if they do something like taking addresses from their transaction history instead of going to the service and copying the address provided there, so in such scenario there's still a room fore error even with the setup of this startup.

Was actually trying to say the same stuff on why the hell i would go to all of those process if you can just simply check the address carefully before sending out and
most wallets now do have that verification like input password or some sort before you do able to send such fund on other wallets. Getting rid of human error
is somewhat impossible no matter how you do made up some changes and also this one isnt really that relevant nor needed at all. Its too hassle on my part
or pretty sure in most people too.