<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;&#xA;&gt; What you&#39;re talking about is just disagreement about the content of&#xA;&gt; the memory pool&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;That&#39;s the same thing. Whilst you&#39;re mining your double spend tx, it&#39;s in&#xA;your mempool but you don&#39;t broadcast it as per normal. Then when you find&#xA;the block you broadcast it to override everyone elses mempool. So yours and&#xA;theirs were inconsistent.&#xA;&#xA;The only slight way BitUndo differs is, they provide it as a service, and I&#xA;don&#39;t know if they inform you when they found a block (probably not), so&#xA;you have to do the purchase and then hope BitUndo finds the next block.&#xA;Otherwise the purchase clears. But they could certainly add a&#xA;pre-notification before they broadcast to get back to the exact scheme&#xA;originally described, they have everything else in place.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Oscar himself can be implemented as a majority M parties to further&#xA;&gt; increase confidence&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;This just brings us back to square one. Who are these parties and what if I&#xA;pay them to be corrupt? What if they offer to be corrupt as a service?&#xA;&#xA;Let&#39;s say I succeed in finding some parties who are incorruptible no matter&#xA;how large of a percentage I offer them. At this point, why bother with&#xA;miners at all? Why pay for double spend protection twice, once to a group&#xA;of Oscar&#39;s who are trustworthy and once to a group of miners who are not?&#xA;&#xA;The point of the broadcast network and mining is so there can be lots of&#xA;Oscar&#39;s and I don&#39;t have to know who they are or sign up with them or put&#xA;any effort into evaluating their reputation.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; value retail transactions— the fact that any cheating by oscar is&#xA;&gt; cryptographically provable (just show them the double signatures)&#xA;&gt; maybe be strong enough alone.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;But as you point out, cheating my GHash.io did not result in any obvious&#xA;negative consequence to them, despite that preventing double spending is&#xA;their sole task. Why would Oscar be different to GHash.io?&#xA;&#xA;Trying to solve the problem of dishonest miners is effectively trying to&#xA;solve the &#34;automatically find trusted third parties&#34; problem at scale.&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/8dac5331/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>