Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5357DD8F.6050308@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5357DD8F.6050308@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:41:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjY4fTTQqkn6=NyU5Fm-54-CnFRHLdEL=3KsUeXBofTqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Kevin <kevinsisco61784@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
	Finney attacks
Precedence: list

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784@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.

> 3.  Is the network at large not secure enough?

Not very relevant.

-- 
Pieter