Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.107 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.107; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148107.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:55:31 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140423155531.GA32545@savin>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5357DD8F.6050308@gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjY4fTTQqkn6=NyU5Fm-54-CnFRHLdEL=3KsUeXBofTqA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjY4fTTQqkn6=NyU5Fm-54-CnFRHLdEL=3KsUeXBofTqA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
 Finney attacks
Precedence: list


--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:41:26PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> 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?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > 2.  Is it possible to "scan" for double-spending and correct it?
>=20
> 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.

Worse, it's a mechanism where miners can vote to penalize other miners
for any reason at all. Nothing in the mechanism requires any proof that
a double-spend happened, nor can it.  Even if you require the simple
"two signatures for same output" mechanism, that just proves the
existance of a second signature, and says nothing at all about whether
or not that signature was ever broadcast on any network.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000278031f86c71265f6eaf1fe9ce6cc831dc4f956676a7a7f7

--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
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==
=EtaT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL--