Thanks deathandtaxes and timoY and a few others for your measured and considered responses. Most of the other respondents really shouldn't bother if they aren't interested in an actual debate and just want to spit and dribble.
I agree that cash is cash and if you hand it over to a scammer then shame on you. But there are many instances where reversibility serves a great purpose. I'm not suggesting that the bitcoin protocol be reworked. It's foundation is solid. But in reality people are going to want security and certainty that their funds are safe.
So perhaps the right solution is a trust based system with some level of reversibility added to instil confidence in the underlying system.
The most important thing for bitcoins adoption is trust - and I don't mean that technically. I mean that on a emotional human level. Right now most people don't trust BTC for shit because so many people get scammed, coins stolen etc... Just because most people here get and know computer security, you can't expect the same of the other 99% of people who don't even know how to turn their tvs on if they lost the remote.
So please instead of just saying NO,NO,NO why not go out there and figure out how you're going to get your grandma to use bitcoin without her loosing all her life's savings.
Topic: We need Reverse Transactions - page 3. (Read 4088 times)
One of the so-called features or benefits of bitcoin is the lack of any reverse transactions. But in many respects this is a great failing. Wouldn't it be better that if you voluntarily identify you as a legal entity holding a wallet address and that if you did not authorise a transaction (i.e. it was stolen or the goods weren't delivered) that there is a method to reverse that transaction?
What if you could submit that a transaction was illegal to the network and for a miners fee of say 10%, the transaction could be reversed by consensus? And that for addresses that are less trusted that becomes automatic but for highly trusted or fully identified addresses that goes to arbitration by one of many authorities/group of people to determine the validity?
To me, the KEY feature for bitcoin is the de-centralisation and limited quantity of units. But we need traditional services that the financial institutions currently provide for it to be useful. One feature is reverse transactions. without it is a hinderance to progress and why it exists to begin with.
Many scammers on this board I'm sure will happily protest to the idea. It doesn't work to their benefit. Is there any work being done on reverse-transactions in bitcoin?
What if you could submit that a transaction was illegal to the network and for a miners fee of say 10%, the transaction could be reversed by consensus? And that for addresses that are less trusted that becomes automatic but for highly trusted or fully identified addresses that goes to arbitration by one of many authorities/group of people to determine the validity?
To me, the KEY feature for bitcoin is the de-centralisation and limited quantity of units. But we need traditional services that the financial institutions currently provide for it to be useful. One feature is reverse transactions. without it is a hinderance to progress and why it exists to begin with.
Many scammers on this board I'm sure will happily protest to the idea. It doesn't work to their benefit. Is there any work being done on reverse-transactions in bitcoin?
I love this idea. Please fork Bitcoin (or create an altcoin) with the option to reverse transactions and allow this altcoin to compete with Bitcoin on the open market.
The market will certainly decide which property is more desirable and we can finally put this topic to rest.
Thanks!
Fun thing, this is included in the protocol.
There is a reversibility option.
There is a reversibility option.
Um what?
see the locktime in tx headers.
see the locktime in tx headers.
Quote
The block number or timestamp at which this transaction is locked:
If all TxIn inputs have final (0xffffffff) sequence numbers then lock_time is irrelevant. Otherwise, the transaction may not be added to a block until after lock_time (see NLockTime).
| Value | Description |
| 0 | Always locked |
| < 500000000 | Block number at which this transaction is locked |
| >= 500000000 | UNIX timestamp at which this transaction is locked |
Quote
nLockTime is a parameter that can be attached to a transaction, that mandates a minimal time (specified in either unix time or block height), that before this time, the transaction cannot be accepted into a block.
locktime is something completely different. I build LockMyCoins around it, so I'm quite sure about it. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it.
if reversals became possible there would be a lot more scamming i think. i wouldn't accapt btc as a payment anymore if i knew the transaction is not reliable and could be charged back.
People accept btc as a form of payment because they know once it is in their wallet they really have it.
Ask retailers about credit cards payments. Overstocks already said that one of the huge benefits in btc for them was the fact it was a reliable payment with no chargebacks.
Just idiotic. Abandon troll-thread of noobaccount. thx
People accept btc as a form of payment because they know once it is in their wallet they really have it.
Ask retailers about credit cards payments. Overstocks already said that one of the huge benefits in btc for them was the fact it was a reliable payment with no chargebacks.
Just idiotic. Abandon troll-thread of noobaccount. thx
This thing even with the benefits this could create, compared to the chaos this would create, would be nothing
[...]the transaction could be reversed by consensus?
In principle, any bitcoin transaction CAN be reversed by consensus. Bit since this requires changing the protocol it is unlikely to ever happen for individual transactions.
During the March 2013 fork event transactions were successfully reversed:
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
More realistically, you could also set up a multisig transaction that requires the consensus of a "committee" of previously selected mediators.
Why was this block rejected? What in specific made it incompatible with earlier versions of the software?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki
As far as reversibility, OP, don't just say "we need X" - if you believe it, do it. Talking does nothing. Please fork the software, and fork the blockchain with your idea. Let us know when it is complete. If it is true that "We need Reverse Transactions", then everyone will switch. The rest of us will be selling your new PayPalCoin.
Either way, it will put an end to these repeated ideas for changes that make no sense.
NO! We do not need transaction reversals. This is an inherent design feature of bitcoin and if you want reversals, go back to fiat or design your own cryptocurrency that allows it.
For the sake of preventing theft, avoiding mistakes, using escrow, etc, reversals are not the answer. More powerful coin spending control can managed with contracts.
For the sake of preventing theft, avoiding mistakes, using escrow, etc, reversals are not the answer. More powerful coin spending control can managed with contracts.
[...]the transaction could be reversed by consensus?
In principle, any bitcoin transaction CAN be reversed by consensus. Bit since this requires changing the protocol it is unlikely to ever happen for individual transactions.
During the March 2013 fork event transactions were successfully reversed:
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
More realistically, you could also set up a multisig transaction that requires the consensus of a "committee" of previously selected mediators.
Why was this block rejected? What in specific made it incompatible with earlier versions of the software?
Bitcoin is cash. Is cash reversible? No.
However that doesn't mean payment systems can't be built ON TOP OF Bitcoin.
VISA isn't a currency, VISA is a payment system built on top of USD cash system.
_____ isn't a currency, ____ is a (future) payment system built on top of BTC cash system.
However that doesn't mean payment systems can't be built ON TOP OF Bitcoin.
VISA isn't a currency, VISA is a payment system built on top of USD cash system.
_____ isn't a currency, ____ is a (future) payment system built on top of BTC cash system.
This, people. Bitcoin is CASH.
If I hand you a $20 bill, and you walk away, there's no reversing that transaction unless I can run faster than you and hit you really hard. But that's called theft.
[...]the transaction could be reversed by consensus?
In principle, any bitcoin transaction CAN be reversed by consensus. Bit since this requires changing the protocol it is unlikely to ever happen for individual transactions.
During the March 2013 fork event transactions were successfully reversed:
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
More realistically, you could also set up a multisig transaction that requires the consensus of a "committee" of previously selected mediators.
If people are involved in transactions with untrusted parties, they should pay for an escrow service. It shouldn't be built into the system itself.
Bitcoin is cash. Is cash reversible? No.
However that doesn't mean payment systems can't be built ON TOP OF Bitcoin.
VISA isn't a currency, VISA is a payment system built on top of USD cash system.
_____ isn't a currency, ____ is a (future) payment system built on top of BTC cash system.
However that doesn't mean payment systems can't be built ON TOP OF Bitcoin.
VISA isn't a currency, VISA is a payment system built on top of USD cash system.
_____ isn't a currency, ____ is a (future) payment system built on top of BTC cash system.
Fun thing, this is included in the protocol.
There is a reversibility option.
There is a reversibility option.
Um what?
No no no no no no and no. Nope absolutely not. nope. Did i get my opinion across?
I agree with everyone else. It is not needed in the bitcoin world. It would also probably take a good bit of code rework to even allow this.
No. Piss off. We don't need that shit in Bitcoin.
Very well put!
Thank you for your insightful post!
My $.02.
Fun thing, this is included in the protocol.
There is a reversibility option.
There is a reversibility option.
One of the so-called features or benefits of bitcoin is the lack of any reverse transactions. But in many respects this is a great failing. Wouldn't it be better that if you voluntarily identify you as a legal entity holding a wallet address and that if you did not authorise a transaction (i.e. it was stolen or the goods weren't delivered) that there is a method to reverse that transaction?
What if you could submit that a transaction was illegal to the network and for a miners fee of say 10%, the transaction could be reversed by consensus? And that for addresses that are less trusted that becomes automatic but for highly trusted or fully identified addresses that goes to arbitration by one of many authorities/group of people to determine the validity?
To me, the KEY feature for bitcoin is the de-centralisation and limited quantity of units. But we need traditional services that the financial institutions currently provide for it to be useful. One feature is reverse transactions. without it is a hinderance to progress and why it exists to begin with.
Many scammers on this board I'm sure will happily protest to the idea. It doesn't work to their benefit. Is there any work being done on reverse-transactions in bitcoin?
What if you could submit that a transaction was illegal to the network and for a miners fee of say 10%, the transaction could be reversed by consensus? And that for addresses that are less trusted that becomes automatic but for highly trusted or fully identified addresses that goes to arbitration by one of many authorities/group of people to determine the validity?
To me, the KEY feature for bitcoin is the de-centralisation and limited quantity of units. But we need traditional services that the financial institutions currently provide for it to be useful. One feature is reverse transactions. without it is a hinderance to progress and why it exists to begin with.
Many scammers on this board I'm sure will happily protest to the idea. It doesn't work to their benefit. Is there any work being done on reverse-transactions in bitcoin?
I dont care if u call me a SCAMMER, but I am hereby protesting your idea. Rather I am suggesting you to stay out of Bitcoin. FIAT money will work better for you. I dont really feel the necessity of explaining you the reason of protesting reversibility in the light of Satoshi's paper. Because, in your eye, he's a scammer too......
Feel free to invent your own currency with this feature and leave Bitcoin alone.
well said Yep 
Jump to: