3 ms·

The fork concern is real, but the double-spend on both forks is less so. It would require the double-spender to have access to both networks. Which isn't that h

The fork concern is real, but the double-spend on both forks is less so. It would require the double-spender to have access to both networks. Which isn't that hard to see. But, it wouldn't take too many parties having access to both networks to prevent the fork in the first place. The miners who control such things are very highly incentivized to keep their operation on the main or largest fork. The alternative for the miners would be doing work on a fork that has the distinct risk of being worthless as soon as the network issues resolve. There are very distinct risks. But ones that have "real world" parallels. Think bars of gold becoming less valuable than antibiotics now worth pennies. Or Marlboros. In the shit-hits-the-fan scenario, values of everything goes crazy not just cryptocurrencies. $1000 smartphones without electricity or networks become paperweights.

chinathrow 9y ago
> The fork concern is real, but the double-spend on both forks is less so. It would require the double-spender to have access to both networks. Which isn't that hard to see. Not hard at all. Have a second uplink to the world wide net, e.g. via sat.
- ballenf 9y ago
  Which is my point: if an interconnect is possible, miners are going to have a very high incentive to use it as well. Not just double-spenders. And it wouldn't take many miners doing it to prevent the fork in the first place.
- Taek 9y ago
  Thing is, as long as there is one honest person with a connection to both networks, they can easily serve as a relay between them, and keep both networks fully synchronized. If an attacker is on both networks and trying to double-spend, it's extremely likely that someone honest is also on both networks who is successfully keeping the two networks fully synchronized. In this type of situation, you can make yourself safe just by waiting for 4-6 confirmations instead of the usual 0-2 confirmations.

chinathrow 9y ago

> The fork concern is real, but the double-spend on both forks is less so. It would require the double-spender to have access to both networks. Which isn't that hard to see. Not hard at all. Have a second uplink to the world wide net, e.g. via sat.

ballenf 9y ago
Which is my point: if an interconnect is possible, miners are going to have a very high incentive to use it as well. Not just double-spenders. And it wouldn't take many miners doing it to prevent the fork in the first place.
Taek 9y ago
Thing is, as long as there is one honest person with a connection to both networks, they can easily serve as a relay between them, and keep both networks fully synchronized. If an attacker is on both networks and trying to double-spend, it's extremely likely that someone honest is also on both networks who is successfully keeping the two networks fully synchronized. In this type of situation, you can make yourself safe just by waiting for 4-6 confirmations instead of the usual 0-2 confirmations.