{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1swfeusu3ua9trup00qcnrgc2yndksyvgku4epk5tec7u4fmrez6qxpul5t","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1swfeusu3ua9trup00qcnrgc2yndksyvgku4epk5tec7u4fmrez6qxpul5t","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:This is outright ridiculous.\n\nZero-confirmation double-spending is a small problem, and possible\nsolutions are known. (E.g. trusted third party + multi-sig addresses for\nsmall-value transactions.)\n\nOn the other hand, protocol changes like described above might have\ngame-theoretical implications which are non-trivial and hard to understand.\n\nThe above approach works as long as the majority of hashpower is honest,\n\u003e defined to mean, working to stop double spending. This is the same security\n\u003e property as described in the white paper, thus this introduces no new\n\u003e security assumptions.\n\u003e\n\nNo. Bitcoin should work if miners are merely individually rational, i.e.\nthey try to maximize their pay-offs without colluding with others.\n\nI guess word \"honest\" might have different meanings, that can be a source\nof confusing.\n1. Honest -- not trying to destroy bitcoin\n2. Honest -- following rules which are not required by the protocol\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/65999bd2/attachment.html\u003e"}