pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinHistory OP 14 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper | Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com Fri Oct 31 bitcoin

Nicolas Williams
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014864.html
Nicolas.Williams at sun.com
Mon Nov 17 16:54:28 EST 2008
Previous message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
Next message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:04:21PM -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:

On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 12:43 +0800, Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
If someone double spends, then the transaction record
can be unblinded revealing the identity of the cheater.


Identities are not used, and there's no reliance on recourse. It's all prevention.


Okay, that's surprising. If you're not using buyer/seller
identities, then you are not checking that a spend is being made
by someone who actually is the owner of (on record as having
recieved) the coin being spent.

How do identities help? It's supposed to be anonymous cash, right? And
say you identify a double spender after the fact, then what? Perhaps
you're looking at a disposable ID. Or perhaps you can't chase them
down.

Double spend detection needs to be real-time or near real-time.

Nico

write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinHistory OP 14 Nov 2023

James A. Donald
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014866.html
jamesd at echeque.com
Mon Nov 17 20:26:31 EST 2008
Previous message: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
Next message: ADMIN: end of bitcoin discussion for now
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nicolas Williams wrote:

How do identities help? It's supposed to be anonymous
cash, right?

Actually no. It is however supposed to be pseudonymous,
so dinging someone's reputation still does not help
much.

And say you identify a double spender after the fact,
then what? Perhaps you're looking at a disposable ID.
Or perhaps you can't chase them down.

Double spend detection needs to be real-time or near
real-time.

Near real time means we have to use UDP or equivalent,
rather than TCP or equivalent, and we have to establish
an approximate consensus, not necessarily the final
consensus, not necessarily exact agreement, but close to
it, in a reasonably small number of round trips.

reply