please delete

[SapphireSpire]

nothing to  see

[watashi-kokoto]

Sounds like Ripple. Have fun paying with it.

[monsterer]

When someone attempts to double spend, it doesn't matter which happened first, any two or more transactions that reference the same UTXO should void each other out and the UTXO should be destroyed

So, I send you 25 BTC, wait for you to accept it and send me my physical item, then I spend the same UTXO to myself and both are destroyed by your new rule, giving me my money back. This is exactly the same as a regular double spend.

[BARR_Official]

When someone attempts to double spend, it doesn't matter which happened first, any two or more transactions that reference the same UTXO should void each other out and the UTXO should be destroyed

So, I send you 25 BTC, wait for you to accept it and send me my physical item, then I spend the same UTXO to myself and both are destroyed by your new rule, giving me my money back. This is exactly the same as a regular double spend.

Actually what you could do would be to use a single utxo and use it to send 100 of your own addresses each 1 satoshi. 

Then you add more money to each address, spend as much as you want, and then cancel the original utxo.  You only lose 100 satoshis, you keep all the merchandise, and you also keep all the other coins.

[BARR_Official]

The only defense against double spend attacks over a decentralized network is time. The longer you wait, the less likely the most recently received transaction is an attempt to double spend.

Yeah, if you have a blockchain.

[monsterer]

So, I send you 25 BTC, wait for you to accept it and send me my physical item, then I spend the same UTXO to myself and both are destroyed by your new rule, giving me my money back. This is exactly the same as a regular double spend.

You would lose your money, not get it back.

UTXO A (mine) = 25 BTC
send A (mine) to B (mine)
send B (mine) to you (C, yours)
send B (mine) to A (mine)

B and C are destroyed, leaving A, the original 25 BTC belonging to me

[shorena]

So, I send you 25 BTC, wait for you to accept it and send me my physical item, then I spend the same UTXO to myself and both are destroyed by your new rule, giving me my money back. This is exactly the same as a regular double spend.

You would lose your money, not get it back.

UTXO A (mine) = 25 BTC
send A (mine) to B (mine)
send B (mine) to you (C, yours)
send B (mine) to A (mine)

B and C are destroyed, leaving A, the original 25 BTC belonging to me

Lets just hope TX are not malleable, ever.

[DannyHamilton]

UTXO A (mine) = 25 BTC
send A (mine) to B (mine)
send B (mine) to you (C, yours)
send B (mine) to A (mine)

B and C are destroyed, leaving A, the original 25 BTC belonging to me

If A is a UTXO then it gets spent in the first step, assuming you send all 25 BTC.
In the last step you would send B to D, not A.
The result is that C and D would void each other, and B would be destroyed.

• Spend UTXO_A (mine) and create new unspent output UTXO_B (yours)
• Sometime later you spend UTXO_B (yours) and create new unspent outputs UTXO_C (yours) and UTXO_D (overstock.com)
• Sometime after that overstock.com spends UTXO_D with other UTXO that they control to consolidate into new unspent output UTXO_E
• overstock.com spends UTXO_E and creates new UTXO_F, UTXO_G, UTXO_H, and UTXO_I to pay salaries to some of their employees
• the employee that received UTXO_F spends it at Dish Satellite TV service on his monthly service fees creating UTXO_J
• Dish exchanges the bitcoins for U.S. currency by spending UTXO_J and creating UTXO_K
• Coinbase sells the bitcoins to a customer, spending UTXO_K and creating UTXO_L
• That customer spends UTXO_L, creating a new unspent output to their paper wallet UTXO_M.  They plan on storing this output for 10 years
• A few days have passed.  I now spend UTXO_A, and create new unspent output UTXO_N to an address that I control

The person that thought they had bitcoins in UTXO_M no longer has those bitcoins?  And they don't even realize it? The overstock.com employees that got paid with UTXO_G, UTXO_H, and UTXO_I suddenly find that their salary has vanished?

Would anyone ever use this system? This is a disaster. You'll NEVER be sure if any payment that you ever receive from anyone will suddenly vanish.

[Amph]

the mining activity is necessary because based ont he electricity used it give somehow a value to bitcoin, the immense power needed is a backup of the valu of bitcoin as i see it

thta's why pos will not work ever and is inferior to pow, also the reward is there to force an increase in the demand for the long terms

the blockchain is just to have a transparent movements over the transactions

[monsterer]

• Spend UTXO_A (mine) and create new unspent output UTXO_B (yours)

...

• A few days have passed.  I now spend UTXO_A, and create new unspent output UTXO_N to an address that I control

You're 2nd attempt to spent UTXO_A would simply be rejected because a majority of the network would have long since processed your first transaction. The rule that transactions should cancel each other and destroy the parent UTXO only applies before one of them has been accepted by a majority of the network.

You initially said that ordering wasn't a problem, but all your statements implicitly contain a notion of ordering. 'Before' is a relative term which cannot be resolved without ambiguity in a trustless system. A 'majority' of nodes could easily be faked by any given attacker for very little cost; that is the entire reason we have mining in the first place.

[DannyHamilton]

The rule that transactions should cancel each other and destroy the parent UTXO only applies before one of them has been accepted by a majority of the network.

How do I know when a transaction "has been accepted by a majority of the network"?  What is the specific technical process that allows me to know exactly when that has happened?

[monsterer]

How do I know when a transaction "has been accepted by a majority of the network"?  What is the specific technical process that allows me to know exactly when that has happened?

An optimized network needs to be organized into a tree-like structure, with some nodes serving as trunks, some as branches, and some as leaves. The topography of a large network would always be changing as nodes connect and disconnect. Nodes can be elevated from leaf to branch to trunk depending on bandwidth and how long they've been connected. The higher the level of elevation of a node the more lower level nodes depend on it for messaging. If an elevated node disconnects, one of it's dependents can be promoted or they can switch to another node of the same level. This way transaction messages can be distributed from any one node to all other nodes on the network without any node receiving the same message twice. Once a transaction has reached every node on the network, acceptance of that transaction would bounce back in reverse direction until it returns to the node who originated the transaction message- the recipient. The recipient can then broadcast the transaction with Proof of Acceptance (POA).

This is not a trustless system.

[DannyHamilton]

How do I know when a transaction "has been accepted by a majority of the network"?  What is the specific technical process that allows me to know exactly when that has happened?

An optimized network needs to be organized into a tree-like structure, with some nodes serving as trunks, some as branches, and some as leaves. The topography of a large network would always be changing as nodes connect and disconnect. Nodes can be elevated from leaf to branch to trunk depending on bandwidth and how long they've been connected. The higher the level of elevation of a node the more lower level nodes depend on it for messaging. If an elevated node disconnects, one of it's dependents can be promoted or they can switch to another node of the same level. This way transaction messages can be distributed from any one node to all other nodes on the network without any node receiving the same message twice. Once a transaction has reached every node on the network, acceptance of that transaction would bounce back in reverse direction until it returns to the node who originated the transaction message- the recipient. The recipient can then broadcast the transaction with Proof of Acceptance (POA).

So, if I'm running a trunk node, then I can send one transaction to one of my branches, and a double-spend transaction to my parent node and all the other branches?  Since messages are distributed in a hierarchy and I can choose to send a message to my branches "without any node receiving the same message twice", those nodes won't realize that they have accepted a double spend?

If the recipient is in the branch that gets my first message, then I'll know because I'll receive their POA, but I won't relay the POA to any other branches (or my parent node).  Instead, I'll broadcast to those other branches my own POA for the double-spend transaction.

When attempting to invent a new solution to a problem that has been analyzed for many decades, it isn't very important to figure out how your invention would work. Lots of people have ideas that, until they put some real thought into the risks, they think would work. It is VERY important to think about how your invention would fail.  Generally, if someone doesn't describe most of the significant failure points in their concept when proposing a new solution to replace bitcoin, I can be pretty confident that they haven't really given their invention much thought and it almost certainly won't work.

Please take the time to think through all the ways your system could fail.  Then either describe why that failure isn't a significant threat, or find a way to protect against the failure.  Once you've got it all worked out, I'd love to hear what your well thought out solution is with all it's potential failures.

This is not a trustless system.

Exactly.  Every node must trust that all the peers above them in the tree have not attempted to isolate them from the rest of the network.

[BARR_Official]

Once a transaction has reached every node on the network

Some of them will be offline

[RodeoX]

I saw you mention that mining is for creating the coins. That aspect alone should not be overlooked. One of the problems with making a new currency is the problem of distribution. Satoshi's mining idea rewards those who help the network and opens up a fair contest that anyone can join in on. Otherwise who gets the money? Your friends? What value is something that was given away for nothing? I would not buy such a coin.  

[monsterer]

If either of you had asked me in advance if the messaging hierarchy gave elevated peers the power to isolate nodes I could have cleared up a lot of false conclusions before you started jumping to them.

You didn't answer my question about ordering. You mentioned that ordering doesn't matter; I say ordering is the only thing which does matter.

edit: working through the following will be informative:

* Given some historical data transaction data for this system, how can any given node joining the network objectively judge that what they're being presented with is not fraudulent data? If you can answer that without having to resort to asking other nodes the correct state, then we can talk more seriously about your design.

[DannyHamilton]

If either of you had asked me in advance if the messaging hierarchy gave elevated peers the power to isolate nodes I could have cleared up a lot of false conclusions before you started jumping to them.

And if you would actually explain how your invention works and what the potential risks are, rather than releasing small pieces of ideas a little at a time as people point out flaws in what you've released so far, then you could avoid a lot of unnecessary questions and prevent a lot of assumptions about things you haven't explained yet.

I'll come back when you're ready to actually explain in detail how such a system could actually work, because the tiny bit of information you've chosen to release so far has more holes than a brick of swiss cheese.

[BTCBinary]

I actually disagree. The Blockchain is in fact the future. Why do you think there has been a lot of investment beeing made, and big companies are getting in?
The blockchain technology is here to stay!

[JasonXG]

Dude you not even making sense. How will bitcoin function without a blockchain ? Care to enlighten me ?