MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: stanga@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBaxWAsEG71FTy4SrVu94BXokeozmJ80tjsNU8ERpTfFaFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPkFh0viwmkUvjo4Qj50TNnkA5kG3z-3dLGExjkmDacE4E49Ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABaSBaxWAsEG71FTy4SrVu94BXokeozmJ80tjsNU8ERpTfFaFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ittay <ittay.eyal@cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:28:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CABT1wW=xqShMGU0+eDiNyNkr-77fQ_HnyKL87C6iGL-xq8BYVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b10681dc599052214bdaa
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ittay Eyal <ittay.eyal@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.
Precedence: list

--001a113b10681dc599052214bdaa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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


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

--001a113b10681dc599052214bdaa
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Bryan Bishop <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:kanzure@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kanzure@gmail.com</a>&gt;</=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Wed, Oct=
 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; while the whitepaper has all the nitty gritty details:<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037" rel=3D=
"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037</a><br>
<br>
</span>Taking reward compensation back by fraud proofs is not enough to fix=
<br>
the problems associated with double spending (such as, everyone has to<br>
wait for the &quot;real&quot; confirmations instead of the &quot;possibly<b=
r>
double-spend&quot; confirmations). Some of this was discussed in -wizards<b=
r>
recently:<br>
<a href=3D"http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-09-19.log" rel=3D"norefer=
rer" target=3D"_blank">http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-09-19.log</a>=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fraud proof removes all the attacker&#39;s=
 revenue. It&#39;s like the attacker sacrifices an entire block for double =
spending in the current system. I think Luke-Jr got it right at that discus=
sion.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Best,=C2=A0</div></div></div><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra">Ittay=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></d=
iv>

--001a113b10681dc599052214bdaa--