gnunet-svn
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[taler-docs] branch master updated: Eliminating mistakes (Design doc 012


From: gnunet
Subject: [taler-docs] branch master updated: Eliminating mistakes (Design doc 012)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:09:45 +0100

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

skuegel pushed a commit to branch master
in repository docs.

The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
     new 1acb9f6  Eliminating mistakes (Design doc 012)
1acb9f6 is described below

commit 1acb9f622d144400bfab037bf9769d8cbeb10228
Author: Stefan K├╝gel <skuegel@web.de>
AuthorDate: Sat Jan 16 23:08:07 2021 +0100

    Eliminating mistakes (Design doc 012)
---
 design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst 
b/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
index 01689de..3d34a4c 100644
--- a/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
+++ b/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
@@ -185,15 +185,15 @@ Exchange operators must in some cases be able to take 
action by using different
 
 * Abuse due to ``withdrawal transactions`` is unlikely as the costs of wire 
transfers are borne by the bank account holders and not the Exchange operators 
or sellers.
 
-* Abuse due to ``deposit transactions`` is unlikely as the Exchange operator 
will usually charge deposit fees on every denomination to generate income 
respectively to cover costs.
+* Abuse due to ``deposit transactions`` is unlikely as the Exchange operator 
usually would like to charge deposit fees on every denomination to generate 
income respectively to cover costs.
 
-* Abuse due to ``refresh transactions`` is possible and requires a 
differentiated treatment: The normal case for refresh transactions is given 
anytime when wallets obtain fresh coins as change for a spent coin of higher 
denomination than the amount to be paid. In this case, an Exchange operator 
will not charge a fee on refreshes for payments with coins of unsuitable 
denomination. Only in the case of abuse - when an exchange suffers from 
arbitrarily triggered refresh transactions en masse [...]
+* Abuse due to ``refresh transactions`` is possible and requires a 
differentiated treatment: The normal case for refresh transactions is given 
anytime when wallets obtain fresh coins as change for a spent coin of higher 
denomination than the amount to be paid. In this case, an Exchange operator 
will not charge a fee on refreshes for payments with coins of unsuitable 
denomination. Only in the case of abuse - when an exchange suffers from 
arbitrary refresh transactions en masse triggered b [...]
 1. arbitrary transaction aborts;
 2. arbitrary repeated refunds (which, however, must be triggered by malicious 
sellers - costs are borne on a case-by-case basis by sellers).
 
-* Abuse due to ``refund transactions`` is theoretically possible and can be 
treated by introducing or increasing the 'Refund' fee whenever a seller 
triggers the refund transaction.
+* Abuse due to ``refund transactions`` occurs when sellers trigger the refund 
transaction arbitrarily too often. This can be limited by introducing or 
increasing the fee type **Refund**. As a consequence, the Exchange operator 
charges sellers for every refund they grant for coins that were signed by the 
exchange.
 
-* Abuse due to ``wire transfers`` will only be a burden for an Exchange 
operator when sellers increase the frequency of aggregated wire transfers from 
the exchange to their banking accounts. This is the case for extremely often 
triggered wire transfers after customers' deposit transactions in order to 
receive sales revenues immediately. A good reason to do this may be the 
seller's need for liquidity. Some merchants might also gain profit from 
interest rates, if they receive revues long t [...]
+* Abuse due to ``wire transfers`` will only affect an Exchange operator when 
sellers increase the frequency of aggregated wire transfers from his exchange 
to their banking accounts. This will the case for extremely often actuated wire 
transfers. A good reason for this may be a seller's urgent need for liquidity 
from sales revenues. Some merchants might also generate profits from interest 
rates, if they receive sales revenues some time before they have to pay for 
their merchandise already [...]
 
 * Abuse due to ``closing transactions`` and the accompanying wire transfer of 
remittances back to the originating accounts burdens the Exchange operator with 
costs for wire transfers; to prevent this, the Exchange operator can introduce 
or increase the fee type **Closing**.
 

-- 
To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
gnunet@gnunet.org.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]