4 ms·

> The second one can be retaliated against off-chain. What do you mean?

by VMG 9y ago

chc 9y ago
I believe it means that the recipient of the double-spent transaction can sue you or send goons after you just like they would someone who defrauded them without using cryptocurrency.
- VMG 9y ago
  How would you determine the culprit? You can't even prove that there was an intent to roll back a particular transaction.
  - cperciva 9y ago
    No, but you can show that there was an intention to double-spend coins.
gizmo686 9y ago
If you do a double spend attack of any significance, the other party will notice. Unless you are doing something completely anonymous, the other party will also know who you are and be able to pursue other remedies (eg. sue you for fraud).
- VMG 9y ago
  If double-spend detection rather than prevention was enough, you could build a much cheaper and more efficient payment system than Bitcoin. What makes Bitcoin interesting is the fact that you don't have to resort to the legal system for final arbitration.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    Bitcoin still succeeds in making double spend attacks expensive. If I am selling pizza's at $10 a piece, I am not going to go after someone for a double spend attack. Attackers know this and so would be more willing to engage in this type of attack, possibly often enough for me to drop the proposed system entirely. If I am engaged in a $100,000 transaction, I would definitely be willing to sue you. Not to mention the fact that a double spend attack still involves a large capital investment, greatly limiting the number of people capable of pulling it off.
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  How could you possibly sue someone for double spending on a blockchain? I don't get it, isn't the point of this blockchain stuff to be the wild west? What is the grounds for a lawsuit? Why would a 51% attack be illegal? "Code is law", right?
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    Fraud. If I agree to buy $100,000 worth of bitcoin from you, and you take my money without giving me the bitcoins you engaged in fraud and are liable to be sued. The fact that you did this through a double spend attack demonstrates a clear intent to defraud me.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    >I don't get it, isn't the point of this blockchain stuff to be the wild west? I guarantee you no judge in the world is going to accept that interpretation. >"Code is law", right? From a legal perspective, obviously not, and given how well accepted the etherium hard fork was in the wake of the DOA smart contract being exploited, you can be pretty sure that a large percentage of the crypto-user population doesn't think so either.
    - cies 9y ago
      Cardano is speaking out in favour of "code is law". Not sure what they do when faced with an actual catastrophy. There are others also taking this stance to some extend. Anyway, Cardano is cool (Haskell, PoS, lots of papers published)
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    "isn't the point of this blockchain stuff to be the wild west?" Not necessarily. Even in an "Code is law" society, there could be some code/law specifically addressing 51% double spending attacks.

> The second one can be retaliated against off-chain. What do you mean?

by VMG 9y ago

> The second one can be retaliated against off-chain. What do you mean?

chc 9y ago

I believe it means that the recipient of the double-spent transaction can sue you or send goons after you just like they would someone who defrauded them without using cryptocurrency.

VMG 9y ago
How would you determine the culprit? You can't even prove that there was an intent to roll back a particular transaction.
- cperciva 9y ago
  No, but you can show that there was an intention to double-spend coins.

gizmo686 9y ago

If you do a double spend attack of any significance, the other party will notice. Unless you are doing something completely anonymous, the other party will also know who you are and be able to pursue other remedies (eg. sue you for fraud).

VMG 9y ago
If double-spend detection rather than prevention was enough, you could build a much cheaper and more efficient payment system than Bitcoin. What makes Bitcoin interesting is the fact that you don't have to resort to the legal system for final arbitration.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  Bitcoin still succeeds in making double spend attacks expensive. If I am selling pizza's at $10 a piece, I am not going to go after someone for a double spend attack. Attackers know this and so would be more willing to engage in this type of attack, possibly often enough for me to drop the proposed system entirely. If I am engaged in a $100,000 transaction, I would definitely be willing to sue you. Not to mention the fact that a double spend attack still involves a large capital investment, greatly limiting the number of people capable of pulling it off.
tree_of_item 9y ago
How could you possibly sue someone for double spending on a blockchain? I don't get it, isn't the point of this blockchain stuff to be the wild west? What is the grounds for a lawsuit? Why would a 51% attack be illegal? "Code is law", right?
- gizmo686 9y ago
  Fraud. If I agree to buy $100,000 worth of bitcoin from you, and you take my money without giving me the bitcoins you engaged in fraud and are liable to be sued. The fact that you did this through a double spend attack demonstrates a clear intent to defraud me.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >I don't get it, isn't the point of this blockchain stuff to be the wild west? I guarantee you no judge in the world is going to accept that interpretation. >"Code is law", right? From a legal perspective, obviously not, and given how well accepted the etherium hard fork was in the wake of the DOA smart contract being exploited, you can be pretty sure that a large percentage of the crypto-user population doesn't think so either.
  - cies 9y ago
    Cardano is speaking out in favour of "code is law". Not sure what they do when faced with an actual catastrophy. There are others also taking this stance to some extend. Anyway, Cardano is cool (Haskell, PoS, lots of papers published)
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  "isn't the point of this blockchain stuff to be the wild west?" Not necessarily. Even in an "Code is law" society, there could be some code/law specifically addressing 51% double spending attacks.