Author: Mike Hearn 2015-02-12 13:44:18
Published on: 2015-02-12T13:44:18+00:00
The context discusses the concept of proving a doublespend instantly by showing two conflicting transactions signed by the same party. There are various e-cash schemes proposed in academic literature that work on this principle. The proposal suggests using the word "notary" instead of "miner" and argues that the notary would have to be sure that collusion or performing doublespend themselves would pay out more than acting honestly. Transactions for small sums are said to be secure. However, there is a debate over whether a rational notary would kill their own business to increase profits in the short term. The author questions why a notary is different from a miner and raises issues such as upfront investment, anonymity, and collateral. A fluid market for notaries must also be ensured.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:50:04.850998+00:00