undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrglullis3y ago0 comments

I don't think you understood. The scenario I presented Charlie is malicious by making a double-spending attack against David and Eve, separately.

You can remove Bob from the scenario and the problem still stands. Say that Charlie gets the IOU directly from Alice, David and Eve are left with duplicate IOUs. Alice has trusted Charlie with $10, not $20, so she can not re-pay both of the creditors. If you say "David and Eve should not have trusted Charlie then, so too bad if they lost each $10", consider the systemic issue if the double spending is made against with thousands of participants.

Without a way to control for double-spending, everyone can mint IOUs freely and any credit note is essentially worthless. And if remove the idea of IOU and try to make all transactions "cash-based", you just turned a fungible-currency into a non-fungible one (are these $10 coming from Alice-the-good-creditor or are they coming from Dick-the-double-spender?)

0 comments

Kinrany3y ago

Charlie doesn't give Alice's IOU to David and Eve, he gives his own IOUs. He can default on those, but that's implied by David and Eve interacting with Charlie directly.

rglullisOP3y ago

This is not at all what you said in your original comment, which implied transitive credit.

Without any transitive property, "Charlie gives his own IOUs" already exists. It is called "selling on credit". No crypto required. Shop owners have been doing that for centuries with pen and paper.

Kinrany3y ago

You get transitive credit from direct credit.

Alice wants to buy an apple from Charlie. Alice gives an IOU to Bob, Bob gives an IOU to Charlie, Charlie gives the apple to Alice.

And - sure, everything crypto does could be done with pen and paper and a phone line. But here Bob's computer can agree to do this without Bob's involvement.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsrglullis3y ago0 comments

I don't think you understood. The scenario I presented Charlie is malicious by making a double-spending attack against David and Eve, separately.

0 comments

Kinrany3y ago

Charlie doesn't give Alice's IOU to David and Eve, he gives his own IOUs. He can default on those, but that's implied by David and Eve interacting with Charlie directly.

rglullisOP3y ago

This is not at all what you said in your original comment, which implied transitive credit.

Kinrany3y ago

You get transitive credit from direct credit.

Alice wants to buy an apple from Charlie. Alice gives an IOU to Bob, Bob gives an IOU to Charlie, Charlie gives the apple to Alice.

And - sure, everything crypto does could be done with pen and paper and a phone line. But here Bob's computer can agree to do this without Bob's involvement.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse