monsterer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 02, 2015, 06:11:44 PM |
|
Thank you for the math, but what about the idea of providing the proof that coins weren't spent and won't be doublespent? Depending on your definition of "decentralized" I might describe a system that will work.
What's to stop the double spender sending the same proof to both parties involved in the attempted double spend?
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
October 02, 2015, 06:20:57 PM |
|
What's to stop the double spender sending the same proof to both parties involved in the attempted double spend?
Cryptography.
|
|
|
|
|
americanpegasus (OP)
|
|
October 04, 2015, 07:13:45 PM |
|
Barring some major breakthrough, it's also a decade or more away.
|
Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
|
|
|
Fuserleer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1016
|
|
October 05, 2015, 11:38:32 AM |
|
Why no stargates mentioned in this thread?
|
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
|
October 05, 2015, 11:39:39 AM |
|
Why no stargates mentioned in this thread? it takes too long to open them. mine usually takes around 5secs to open...its faster to send through a network
|
|
|
|
Fuserleer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1016
|
|
October 05, 2015, 11:44:23 AM |
|
Why no stargates mentioned in this thread? it takes too long to open them. mine usually takes around 5secs to open...its faster to send through a network hahaha touche!
|
|
|
|
|
herzmeister
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 05, 2015, 01:48:08 PM |
|
Practically all modern high-scale web sites and services let go of the "1) Consistency". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventual_consistency is the keyword these days. It's apparently good enough. Bitcoin uses it almost by definition. The question then becomes how it can be optimized and how fast it can be designed.
|
|
|
|
amaclin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
|
|
October 06, 2015, 08:50:41 AM |
|
The problem is that "confirmed" != "secured". There is not a problem to have blocks each second (instead of 6 per hour in current bitcoin) And the transactions will be confirmed "instant", in a couple of seconds. But one, two and even 10 confirmations in this crypto will be unsecure.
|
|
|
|
monsterer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 06, 2015, 09:57:03 AM |
|
The problem is that "confirmed" != "secured". There is not a problem to have blocks each second (instead of 6 per hour in current bitcoin) And the transactions will be confirmed "instant", in a couple of seconds. But one, two and even 10 confirmations in this crypto will be unsecure.
Actually, below 10 seconds block time you start to hit big inefficiency problems due to orphans - you get around 200 orphans/day at 10 seconds, even with stuff like GHOST. Bitcoin has about 1 orphan/day.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 4532
|
|
October 06, 2015, 10:05:55 AM |
|
the way that instant confirms would work is not to speed up the block solving. but to instead lock-in a TX into the miners mempool. and ignore any second tx's using the same funds. even if the second one has a higher tx fee. and have all miners advertise their mempools so that everyone knows and all miners have the same locked in tx's. that way double spending (attempts) wont be a worry, even with zero confirms
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
amaclin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
|
|
October 06, 2015, 10:14:59 AM |
|
that everyone knows and all miners have the same locked in tx's. that way double spending (attempts) wont be a worry, even with zero confirms
Where do you live? Is that a world where the speed of the light is infinite, network latency is zero and the connections are permanent?
|
|
|
|
monsterer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 06, 2015, 10:21:24 AM |
|
the way that instant confirms would work is not to speed up the block solving. but to instead lock-in a TX into the miners mempool. and ignore any second tx's using the same funds. even if the second one has a higher tx fee. and have all miners advertise their mempools so that everyone knows and all miners have the same locked in tx's. that way double spending (attempts) wont be a worry, even with zero confirms
Nope. That is one poor attempt at solving the problem - here is why that doesn't work: 1. You would need to hold all transactions ever made in the mempool - otherwise later blocks can still reverse transactions 2. Sybil attack - transaction locks can be faked if you control a majority of nodes - your sybil nodes confirm a lock for transaction A and then also confirm another lock for a double spend of A after the merchant accepts your initial transaction. If there is no cost to being a node, this attack is free. If you must supply collateral to be a 'node' then the cost is a constant.
|
|
|
|
monsterer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 06, 2015, 12:30:15 PM |
|
Transactions in 2.0 might get into a block in 3 seconds, but it takes 30s for them to become 'irreversible'.
|
|
|
|
amaclin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
|
|
October 06, 2015, 12:32:24 PM |
|
Transactions in 2.0 might get into a block in 3 seconds, but it takes 30s for them to become 'irreversible'.
Nothing is 100% irreversible.
|
|
|
|
monsterer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 06, 2015, 12:42:46 PM |
|
Transactions in 2.0 might get into a block in 3 seconds, but it takes 30s for them to become 'irreversible'.
Nothing is 100% irreversible. Hence my quotes around the word.
|
|
|
|
amaclin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
|
|
October 06, 2015, 12:54:17 PM |
|
Hence my quotes around the word.
chopped meat can not be reversed to a cow
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
October 06, 2015, 01:30:06 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
TeamButtcoin
|
|
October 06, 2015, 02:54:40 PM |
|
just because entangled particles do things simultaneously does not mean in any way that 'quantum computing' will allow for instantaneous transmission of or processing of data, neither are possible
|
|
|
|
|