{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1n8ytpf4jzavm7hl9t5zksuefcguu6k3frvztqqc4kgcdkwduqesq0637cg","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1n8ytpf4jzavm7hl9t5zksuefcguu6k3frvztqqc4kgcdkwduqesq0637cg","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-14\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Bryan Bishop \u003ckanzure at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Emin Gün Sirer\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e while the whitepaper has all the nitty gritty details:\n\u003e \u003e      http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037\n\u003e\n\u003e Taking reward compensation back by fraud proofs is not enough to fix\n\u003e the problems associated with double spending (such as, everyone has to\n\u003e wait for the \"real\" confirmations instead of the \"possibly\n\u003e double-spend\" confirmations). Some of this was discussed in -wizards\n\u003e recently:\n\u003e http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-09-19.log\n\n\nFraud proof removes all the attacker's revenue. It's like the attacker\nsacrifices an entire block for double spending in the current system. I\nthink Luke-Jr got it right at that discussion.\n\nBest,\nIttay\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151014/0630ba8f/attachment.html\u003e"}