3 ms·
I was worried that they would expose a fundamental flaw in the encryption algorithm, however the post goes on with irrelevant FUD. It s a lot less flawed than e
by return0 14y ago
I was worried that they would expose a fundamental flaw in the encryption algorithm, however the post goes on with irrelevant FUD. It s a lot less flawed than even paper currency, and the fact that there haven't been any forgeries is a testament to its success. The argument about identifying transactions is a bit disconcerting, but how much of a real concern is it? After all, even paper money has a trail of DNAs from the hands that touched it.
As for the comparisons with other currencies and commodities, it has been exhausted as a subject; money is a matter of trust after all.
The question is what are the actual security threats to bitcoin's p2p infrastructure/integrity?
- DanBC 14y ago> and the fact that there haven't been any forgeries is a testament to its success. There has been a successful double spend.
- return0 14y agoIs that something that can be fixed/improved?
- pixelcort 14y agoThere is a fix that will go live in the future at a predetermined date. All users are being encouraged to update their clients or patch their clients' config files before the impending deadline. I'm not sure what will happen to clients that don't patch or update.
- erikpukinskis 14y agoNot really. The possibility of a short lived double spend is a valid state for the system to be in. What is vanishingly unlikely is a long lived double spend. There are currently no long lived double spends in the block chain, and that means no double spend has ever been successful.
- ramblerman 14y agoerrr. no there hasn't