{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-14\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Emin Gün Sirer\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e while the whitepaper has all the nitty gritty details:\n\u003e      http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037\n\nTaking reward compensation back by fraud proofs is not enough to fix\nthe problems associated with double spending (such as, everyone has to\nwait for the \"real\" confirmations instead of the \"possibly\ndouble-spend\" confirmations). Some of this was discussed in -wizards\nrecently:\nhttp://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-09-19.log\n\nFor a system based entirely on fraud proofs and threat of fraud\nproofs, see fidelity-bonded ledgers:\nhttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002189.html\nhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146307.0\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507"}