4 ms·

Exactly. Using protocols to prevent double spending hurts performance and scalability. Detect fraudsters and ignoring them is cheap. This is a fundamental issu

Exactly. Using protocols to prevent double spending hurts performance and scalability. Detect fraudsters and ignoring them is cheap. This is a fundamental issue I believe. If you have a stable legal ecosystem you can use the law of the land to ensure that double spending has real-world consequences. Preventing double spending is expensive. Guaranteed double spending _detection_ might also be sufficient and scales horizontally.

michaelscott 6y ago
I'm interested in your thoughts on the performance impact of double spend prevention. What algorithms have you looked at, working on this project?
- devos50 6y ago
  we are building upon our own lightweight, scalable distributed ledger which has been in development for many years now. This ledger is based on the swift detection of double-spend behavior. You can find details on the fraud detection algorithm in our peer-reviewed paper, see https://dicg2020.github.io/papers/devos.pdf https://dicg2020.github.io/papers/devos.pdf (an extended version is currently under review). We have also performed scalability experiments on our nation-wide compute cluster to estimate the throughput of our distributed ledger. These experiments hint that our ledger is easily capable of handling 100.000+ transactions/sec.
tphyahoo2 6y ago
https://standardcrypto.wordpress.com/2021/03/10/the-your-papers-please-argument-for-cbdcs/ https://standardcrypto.wordpress.com/2021/03/10/the-your-pap... The "your papers please" argument. It's true. If you live in a world where you are compelled to present an identity for any financial transaction, then there is no need for bitcoin, to prevent double spending.
nixpulvis 6y ago
The law costs money. I feel like you're missing a critical winning game for an adversary.
rebuilder 6y ago
This requires permanent identities, right? So compared to cash payments, this system is potentially more oppressive because you can be rendered unable to pay for things. I imagine there are some sticky legal questions to solve there - usually this kind of intervention in a person's life would require a court order or similar. How traceable are transactions to the payer? Is there any anonymity?
Melkman 6y ago
Ignoring fraudsters will only work if that causes a cost to the fraudster bigger than the gain by double spending. Basically you will have to use key pairs tied to natural persons. If there is any anonymity or pseudonymity the fraudster will just generate a new key pair and double spend again. How does this system guard against that ?

michaelscott 6y ago

I'm interested in your thoughts on the performance impact of double spend prevention. What algorithms have you looked at, working on this project?

devos50 6y ago
we are building upon our own lightweight, scalable distributed ledger which has been in development for many years now. This ledger is based on the swift detection of double-spend behavior. You can find details on the fraud detection algorithm in our peer-reviewed paper, see https://dicg2020.github.io/papers/devos.pdf https://dicg2020.github.io/papers/devos.pdf (an extended version is currently under review). We have also performed scalability experiments on our nation-wide compute cluster to estimate the throughput of our distributed ledger. These experiments hint that our ledger is easily capable of handling 100.000+ transactions/sec.

tphyahoo2 6y ago

https://standardcrypto.wordpress.com/2021/03/10/the-your-papers-please-argument-for-cbdcs/ https://standardcrypto.wordpress.com/2021/03/10/the-your-pap... The "your papers please" argument. It's true. If you live in a world where you are compelled to present an identity for any financial transaction, then there is no need for bitcoin, to prevent double spending.

nixpulvis 6y ago

The law costs money. I feel like you're missing a critical winning game for an adversary.

rebuilder 6y ago

This requires permanent identities, right? So compared to cash payments, this system is potentially more oppressive because you can be rendered unable to pay for things. I imagine there are some sticky legal questions to solve there - usually this kind of intervention in a person's life would require a court order or similar. How traceable are transactions to the payer? Is there any anonymity?

Melkman 6y ago

Ignoring fraudsters will only work if that causes a cost to the fraudster bigger than the gain by double spending. Basically you will have to use key pairs tied to natural persons. If there is any anonymity or pseudonymity the fraudster will just generate a new key pair and double spend again. How does this system guard against that ?