Author: Jorge Timón 2014-04-24 14:49:31
Published on: 2014-04-24T14:49:31+00:00
The proposed scheme to discourage Finney attacks by charging the maximum double spending fee possible does not solve the problem. It only solves regular double-spends, and finney attacks do not get any worse. The scheme is also not mandatory, and people can still wait for confirmations or rely on existing trust if that is better for them. However, Chris Pacia thinks it is an ugly hack and would prefer the hassle of a green address notary. There are also complications with the scheme, such as needing to double balances and what happens if a shop is selling something on contract. Alice cannot save anything in a Finney attack, and signing a longer-term contract does not protect her. Jorge suggests going down to local bars and cafes to ask if they would accept a form of payment that allows anyone to steal from them by paying double the purchase price to some other random guy. They would do this to avoid having to wait for confirmation when being paid by people they don't trust just before they leave. In conclusion, the proposed scheme is not very interesting when compared to some theoretical mechanism for instant p2p serialization without requiring proof of work.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T21:11:22.522985+00:00