Distributed Double Spending Prevention · HackerPapers discussions

Distributed Double Spending Prevention — mentioned by EGreg

Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:52:26 GMT

Sorry, but you're not exactly an expert on this. There is a huge body of literature that says otherwise, and reference implementations. You don't NEED "a centralizing consensus". IOTA did have one, called a "governor". And now they also did away with it. I had a discussion with the CTO of Ripple (back then their chief cryptographer) David Schwartz about this exact issue in 2018, when I was also connecting with Leslie Lamport and others in the industry to discuss why and how global consensus was even needed https://community.intercoin.app/t/intercoin-technology-conse... You can also read this…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Distributed Double Spending Prevention — mentioned by EGreg

Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:46:33 GMT

(I fed it this PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.0832v1.pdf) And got the same experience I often have with LLMs: How many validators are enough to make the scheme secure According to page 5 of the PDF, the system is secure with security parameters if the adversary must perform an expected O(2^s) amount of work in order to be successful. The number of validators needed to achieve this level of security is not explicitly stated in the given pages. Are you sure? Yes, I am sure. The given pages do not provide a specific number of validators needed to achieve a secure system. However, the authors do…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Distributed Double Spending Prevention — mentioned by alex_sf

Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:11:29 GMT

> - Bitcoin doesn't use DHTs. I didn't say it did. But the idea of distributing data in a P2P fashion is not novel. > - The term blockchain was coined after the Bitcoin white paper was published, to describe the mechanism used in Bitcoin. I'm not very interested in the particular etymology. The fundamental ideas of a blockchain, regardless of what you call it, had been laid out by multiple people years before the bitcoin whitepaper[0]. > - Bitcoin was the first system to solve the double spending problem in a decentralized way. No, it wasn't[1][2]. > The network is actively used. Just…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Distributed Double Spending Prevention — mentioned by alex_sf

Thu, 06 Apr 2023 04:49:02 GMT

Sure. Whitepaper was released in 2008. Genesis block was in 2009. In 2007 we had Combating Double-Spending Using Cooperative P2P Systems[0]. Prior to both the whitepaper and the genesis block, we had Distributed Double Spending Prevention[1]. These are all particular subsets of distributed consensus problems, which have been studied in the context of CS for at least 30+ years (Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony[2]). [0] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4268195 [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0832 [2] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Distributed Double Spending Prevention — mentioned by EGreg

Sun, 17 Jan 2021 06:25:05 GMT

Yes, it is a good step forward. Really, what you need is a distributed hash table (like MaidSAFE), or randomness beacons (like Algorand) to select a subset of the network. This paper shows mathematically that the probability of a double-spend goes down exponentially with the number of notaries, and having the entire network secure every transaction, no matter the size, is wayyyy overkill: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.0832v1.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.