4 ms·
Either the author of this article is confused or I am. He describes the situation of a deliberate hard fork into two chains with different consensus rules. He
by nokcha 9y ago
Either the author of this article is confused or I am. He describes the situation of a deliberate hard fork into two chains with different consensus rules. He then notes that Alice can spend her original (prefork) bitcoin differently on the two resulting chains --- but where he loses me is where he claims that this somehow represents a double-spend vulnerability.
- hudon 9y agoBoth Charlie and Bob have received bitcoin. This is a double-spend by definition.
- friend-monoid 9y agoYup. When Bitcoin forked into Bitcoin cash, everyone was free to "double spend" - once in Bitcoin and once in Bitcoin cash. Money just up and doubled itself.
- hudon 9y agoAn actual great example is in 2013 when this happened [0]. For 24 hours, Bitcoin could not reach consensus and users could double-spend. The fact that we do not know how likely Bitcoin consensus failure is—especially when so many forks and conflicting rulesets are emerging—should worry anyone thinking about decentralized consensus. [0] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-...