Bitcoin Forum

"There is rightly a huge fear of double spending in the Cryptocurrency sector. What this means, is that a user can spend the same coins twice, or more. A very commonly held view is that if you can double spend digital currency (spend the same coins in store A, then store B, store C, and so on), then that particular system is broken. As this would very likely cause hyperinflation and make the coins in that system worthless if the same coins can repeatedly used in this manner."

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-1-banks-0-bank-canada-facing-prosecution/ (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-1-banks-0-bank-canada-facing-prosecution/)

Holy fuck!  What a bunch of idiots.  I love this part: "A very commonly held view is that if you can double spend digital currency (spend the same coins in store A, then store B, store C, and so on), then that particular system is broken"

lol!  That one gets me rolling.  :)

I think it is going to be a long time before people begin to understand Bitcoin.  Journalists like these will fuck up the explanation over and over again for about the next 10 years.

How is this so incorrect?

Looks like they explained rather well. Concise. Clear.


I think it is going to be a long time before people you begin to understand Bitcoin.

I think the OP misunderstood the paragraph.

He took it to mean that most people are worried about a possible double-spend attack on bitcoin, and that if that happens, bitcoin will be broken. Ad he thought that was silly because a 51% attack is extremely difficult, and the benefits are far outweighed by the cost.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Good, finally someone understand central banks' double spending game, let's see if someone could bring it to higher level. As claimed by Mike Maloney, this is unconstitutional

They have something correct.... If someone could maintain a double spend {51% attack} they would eventually kill the coin. Two questions comes to mind :

1. Would this go unnoticed, before Gavin and his team react and stop it with counter measures?
2. Why would someone want to do this?... Doing this gives you extra milk, but you would be killing the cow.  ???

Whoever wants to do this has to be super stupid and have huge pockets to fund it. The cost to do this outweigh the possible profit to be made from it.  ;D ;D ;D

Technically speaking i don't understand why the article needs to relate 51 percent attack and double spending to loans and debts. It's not a one to one analogy. Attack on the system is an unlikely but possible scenario but the debt thing is happening daily. And to certain extent, i think the article has other intentions.

Actually that article is good and explained things well. Perhaps OP misunderstood something.

or he:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/d75ca225-3e0d-4d9e-a8a8-d32edda58a94


 :D

*shudders*

What an absolute cretin Mr Mallaby is.  Way to take a quick glance at something and miss the point entirely.  Clearly he hasn't done any actual research into it at all.  "Backed by an anonymous hacker"?  Where do they find these people and how are they allowed on TV?

It's somewhat correct but definitely not on point. They should have Andreas Antonopoulous giving lectures in colleges and high schools too.

This is like a writer emphasizing the fact that if Dollars can be easily counterfeited, then that will lead to hyperinflation of the Dollar and loss of all value of it and any economy based on it. That is true of course, but if you found a journalist harping on it in a news article not devoted to precisely that topic, you'd be right in suspecting the journalist of having ulterior motives. Especially if the news story failed to note all the countermeasures taken to prevent just such an outcome and how unlikely it is.