Undo for Incognito.

I saw a chain, I think it was swingby that implemented a transaction undo.

Use case 1:
Sally wants to send betty 1btc to help fund with a potentially terminal illness.
Sally sends it, but Betty dies before the block is done validating.
Sally is sad, but she can still retrieve her funds.

Use case 2:
Bills computer has a virus that sometimes copy pastes extra characters, or his screen is broke and randomly glitches and hits send.
Bill wants to transfer funds between his two wallets. from wallet a to wallet b.
Bill sends his funds from a.
In his other wallet b, if he doesn’t see the funds he can go back to wallet a and hit undo. But if he does see his funds in wallet b with a button “secure received funds” he hits it and now it is in wallet b.

Basically a smart contract escrow that either side can affect the money.

I think this is not possible without a man in the middle. You can not make transactions on the blockchain undone which is one of the most important parts about blockchain in terms of security and trust. Moreover even if this would be possible somehow, I would not trust any Incognito payments anymore in this case as you always are in fear that the sender claims his funds back.

it is opposed to the fundamental principles of blockchain actualy

3 Likes

I suppose you think all smart contracts are opposed to the fundamentals of blockchain?

There is no double spending. Entirely trustless, Entirely optional feature, open sourced.

What user sees:
You>them.

What the blockchain sees:
You > smart contract > them.

Ita only undoable if the second wallet does not accept the funds.
It would not change p2p buisness transactions because undoing a send of funds would be functionally the same as never having sent a transaction.
This would statist eliminate the risk of sending funds to a wrong address.

If you wanted to be cautious the smart contract could have a timer that it will not allow an undo to take place until the funds have been in the contract for an hour, or so many blocks.

And this could be a user selected default. Though I could only see people not wanting this option if they are about to be jailed/divorced/extradited and are emptying a compromised wallet to other wallets and want to make sure Noone else can pull the funds back. :laughing:

1 Like

I don’t like this idea, but just one person’s opinion.

Besides philosophical reasons, I want to LOWER gas/tx fees not increase them.

personally I think this is not necessary

From coin telegraph:
SmartSelect_20201115-225049_Chrome
I’m trying to think about user experience for beginners/intermediates. Just like how plug and play nodes are designed for accessibility to the masses. And how simplified incognitos ui is.

The stress is common and the loss is common. Thats actually a pretty darn high failure rate. Shoot for mass adoption .1% failure rate can kill a product. If it was flight critical on an airplane I think it would be nessesary.

If banks or atms had user failure rates that high they would go out of buisness.

As for gas fees. Make it optional, a toggle for the extra layer if security I’d gladly pay it. If I was sending 100BTC to another wallet you dont think they would pay? People pay for package insurance in real life, and it would be still exceedingly cheap.

Metamask and walletconnect do this already. I’m still asking… why?

1 Like

I dont know why we Dont. I wish coinbase had this, because a friend just sent chainlink to my usdc account. Had they had that as a safeguard id have my payment by now.

There is so much room for avoidable user error and we haven’t even had mass adoption yet.

In my opinion, I think it’s not necessary, I prefer we have many kinds of authentication when transferring out of Incognito

6 Likes