rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23 📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:41:26PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have some questions: > > 1. How can we work towards solving the double-spending problem? > > We have this awesome technology that solves the double-spending > problem. It's called a blockchain. Of course, it only works when > transactions are actually in a block. > > This issue is about double-spending preventing before they're > confirmed. This is (and has always been) just a best-effort mechanism > in the network. > > > 2. Is it possible to "scan" for double-spending and correct it? > > That is what is being proposed here, by introducing a mechanism where > miners can vote to penalize other miners if they seem to allow (too > many?) double spends. Worse, it's a mechanism where miners can vote to penalize other miners for any reason at all. Nothing in the mechanism requires any proof that a double-spend happened, nor can it. Even if you require the simple "two signatures for same output" mechanism, that just proves the existance of a second signature, and says nothing at all about whether or not that signature was ever broadcast on any network. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000278031f86c71265f6eaf1fe9ce6cc831dc4f956676a7a7f7 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 685 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/c189cccd/attachment.sig>