📅 Original date posted:2011-08-04
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on detecting double-spends in Bitcoin. Satoshi suggested payment processors could alert bad transactions, while others suggest monitoring the network for conflicting transactions.
📝 Original message:On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 23:36 +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> The vending machine/detecting double spends issue was discussed by
> Satoshi in July 2010:
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
>
> He mentioned payment processors that could "alert the transaction is bad".
I stand with satoshi here. No need to add more stuff to the network
protocol, a well-connected node can easily monitor the miners(/network)
for double-spends and alert whoever may need to know that the
transaction should not be accepted. True, not everyone has the
resources to try to implement this, however the number of people who
have the resources to implement a Bitcoin storefront and not implement
this (vs those who will/do use a payment processor who handles such
things), I would think, are fairly small.
Additionally, keep in mind that many storefronts don't need to care if a
transaction confirms in 10 seconds or 1 hour. Only digital goods and
physical purchases could benefit from such speed increases.
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 00:10 +0200, Stefan Thomas wrote:
Since nobody else has mentioned it: There is another (more pragmatic?)
> way to detect double spends:
>
> 1. Connect to lots of clients
> 2a. If they all send you the same transaction -> double spend unlikely
> 2b. If some don't send you the transaction (or send a conflicting one)
> -> double spend in progress
This is exactly what I've been suggesting this whole time.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110805/46bac9d9/attachment.sig>;
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 04:12:43
in reply to nevent1q…vquq
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 04:12:43Event JSON
{
"id": "70bc61568d215f111ab1828b76c419bd82a18bb3bd4166b856f422ee1b832b6e",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686103963,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f7bac66510d148bc7cd5c36f79897fafe3410a2bc9df45238a65f8429b9407f0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"59efb3c7fd044a6a12ee467e09ddb316f3209476f67026c981c804e3fd161fd2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-08-04\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on detecting double-spends in Bitcoin. Satoshi suggested payment processors could alert bad transactions, while others suggest monitoring the network for conflicting transactions.\n📝 Original message:On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 23:36 +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e The vending machine/detecting double spends issue was discussed by\n\u003e Satoshi in July 2010:\n\u003e \n\u003e https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819\n\u003e \n\u003e He mentioned payment processors that could \"alert the transaction is bad\".\nI stand with satoshi here. No need to add more stuff to the network\nprotocol, a well-connected node can easily monitor the miners(/network)\nfor double-spends and alert whoever may need to know that the\ntransaction should not be accepted. True, not everyone has the\nresources to try to implement this, however the number of people who\nhave the resources to implement a Bitcoin storefront and not implement\nthis (vs those who will/do use a payment processor who handles such\nthings), I would think, are fairly small.\nAdditionally, keep in mind that many storefronts don't need to care if a\ntransaction confirms in 10 seconds or 1 hour. Only digital goods and\nphysical purchases could benefit from such speed increases.\n\nOn Fri, 2011-08-05 at 00:10 +0200, Stefan Thomas wrote:\nSince nobody else has mentioned it: There is another (more pragmatic?) \n\u003e way to detect double spends:\n\u003e \n\u003e 1. Connect to lots of clients\n\u003e 2a. If they all send you the same transaction -\u003e double spend unlikely\n\u003e 2b. If some don't send you the transaction (or send a conflicting one) \n\u003e -\u003e double spend in progress\n\nThis is exactly what I've been suggesting this whole time.\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 836 bytes\nDesc: This is a digitally signed message part\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110805/46bac9d9/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "f6d37f7fd14f99767b7d20c40cf4eb2bcd40dd8b1dd0b95e34700bc5e289d51839584d62a2e4124d948482e9de88bd40ec746377c1f6ad4dad46ba5e92c574c3"
}