rich1.0npub1n8ytpf4jzavm7hl9t5zksuefcguu6k3frvztqqc4kgcdkwduqesq0637cghttps://nostr.ae/npub1n8ytpf4jzavm7hl9t5zksuefcguu6k3frvztqqc4kgcdkwduqesq0637cgnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-14 📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Emin Gün Sirer > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > while the whitepaper has all the nitty gritty details: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037 > > Taking reward compensation back by fraud proofs is not enough to fix > the problems associated with double spending (such as, everyone has to > wait for the "real" confirmations instead of the "possibly > double-spend" confirmations). Some of this was discussed in -wizards > recently: > http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-09-19.log Fraud proof removes all the attacker's revenue. It's like the attacker sacrifices an entire block for double spending in the current system. I think Luke-Jr got it right at that discussion. Best, Ittay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151014/0630ba8f/attachment.html>