rich1.0npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpghttps://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpgnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-14 📝 Original message: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 For a system based entirely on fraud proofs and threat of fraud proofs, see fidelity-bonded ledgers: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002189.html https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146307.0 - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507