MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPkFh0viwmkUvjo4Qj50TNnkA5kG3z-3dLGExjkmDacE4E49Ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPkFh0viwmkUvjo4Qj50TNnkA5kG3z-3dLGExjkmDacE4E49Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:12:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBaxWAsEG71FTy4SrVu94BXokeozmJ80tjsNU8ERpTfFaFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>, 
	Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ittay Eyal <ittay.eyal@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.
Precedence: list

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer
<bitcoin-dev@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=3D146307.0

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507