rich1.0npub1dw9jxy0p6fyd6gxcxsqgp2uhslas47tam2y36kwjyzlryq3tuvtsvr3e7qhttps://nostr.ae/npub1dw9jxy0p6fyd6gxcxsqgp2uhslas47tam2y36kwjyzlryq3tuvtsvr3e7qnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23 📝 Original message:Isn't a faster blockchain for transactions (maybe as a sidechain) solving the problem? If there would be a safe way for 0-confirmation transactions, the Bitcoin blockchain wouldn't even be needed. On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Right, this works in the Bitcoin network today absent any collusion by >> the miners. You give one miner a transaction and you give every other >> node you can reach another transaction. >> > > Yes, but that can be fixed with double spend alerts. > > >> Someone you ask to not double spend is an entirely separate matter. >> They aren't self-selecting: you select who you trust to not make >> double spends and there is no need for this trust to be globally >> consistent. >> > > No? It's not just your decision that matters, the receiver also has to > trust them. They're like a dispute mediator in this regard. You can pick > whoever you want, but that doesn't matter if the receiver doesn't recognise > them or trust them. You have to find an overlap to make an instant trade. > > In practice if people have to think about this, evaluate brands etc then > you'd get a very small number of parties because the value of global > agreement is so high. Then it becomes hard to remove ones that have a lot > of momentum. > > The censorship resistance of the block chain doesn't matter if your double > spending partners refuse to help you spend your money (because they're > being coerced). The censorship can just happen at a different place. > > >> To stop GHash.io we would have to take away their hardware or change the >> Bitcoin >> protocol to make their hardware useless >> > > ..... or, have a majority decide to zero out their coinbase rewards for > blocks that double spent against dice sites. That wouldn't undo the double > spend, but you can't do that with the multisig scheme either. All you can > do is punish the corrupted party post-hoc, either by not using them again, > or by "unpaying" them for the service they did not provide. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform > Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software > Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready > Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform > http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/381deca8/attachment.html>