This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Without doing original research, ha. if I recall correctly double-spending:
75.87.130.113 ( talk) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
roughly translated, please put into proper english and expend article with this.
I came here to understand Double Spending, but the page is literally indecipherable. For example: "...such double-spending are Inflation by "create" a new amount of not-removed currency...". This makes no sense in English. I appreciate someone taking the time to expand the ideas here, however, the page is unreadable. If someone that is fluent in written English and also highly knowledgeable of cryptocurrency concepts could please edit the page so that it can actually be used that would be great. This is not a criticism. I'm merely trying to bring awareness to this issue in hopes that it can be resolved. Jonassteinberg ( talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)jonassteinberg Jonassteinberg ( talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose to merge 2018 double-spend attacks on Equihash-based cryptocurrencies into Double-spending. For WP:MERGEREASON three "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic" and because I don't think the event is independently notable. The Double-spending article can cover non-notable attacks on notable cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin Gold is already mentioned. @ Xinbenlv, Ceosad, Jtbobwaysf, and Retimuko: Pinging participants of the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin_Gold#Propose_unmerge_with_Bitcoin_Gold_Double_Spend_Attack. Џ 21:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a few case studies if there're things like that. Otherwise, should say somewhere that no known double spending ever worked in proof of work contexts (that isn't a 51% attack) PolyCreator ( talk) 06:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"Double-spending is a fundamental flaw in a digital cash protocol" NOOOOO
For something to be Money, it is required to be scarce. This is true of any money, including PAPER CURRENCY
Technology is used in the DESIGN of any currency to prevent Double Spend AKA Counterfeit!
When an issuer of paper currency employs special paper or printing methods and penalties for fraud they are attempting to enforce scarcity, prevent double spending.
Example; 17th century - new france, card money were printed on cards printed in france and signed by intendant, governor, and treasurer.
Double Spend problem, is not a digital problem of electronic cash - its a fundamental design problem of money generally.
76.65.23.149 ( talk) 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Without doing original research, ha. if I recall correctly double-spending:
75.87.130.113 ( talk) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
roughly translated, please put into proper english and expend article with this.
I came here to understand Double Spending, but the page is literally indecipherable. For example: "...such double-spending are Inflation by "create" a new amount of not-removed currency...". This makes no sense in English. I appreciate someone taking the time to expand the ideas here, however, the page is unreadable. If someone that is fluent in written English and also highly knowledgeable of cryptocurrency concepts could please edit the page so that it can actually be used that would be great. This is not a criticism. I'm merely trying to bring awareness to this issue in hopes that it can be resolved. Jonassteinberg ( talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)jonassteinberg Jonassteinberg ( talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose to merge 2018 double-spend attacks on Equihash-based cryptocurrencies into Double-spending. For WP:MERGEREASON three "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic" and because I don't think the event is independently notable. The Double-spending article can cover non-notable attacks on notable cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin Gold is already mentioned. @ Xinbenlv, Ceosad, Jtbobwaysf, and Retimuko: Pinging participants of the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin_Gold#Propose_unmerge_with_Bitcoin_Gold_Double_Spend_Attack. Џ 21:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a few case studies if there're things like that. Otherwise, should say somewhere that no known double spending ever worked in proof of work contexts (that isn't a 51% attack) PolyCreator ( talk) 06:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"Double-spending is a fundamental flaw in a digital cash protocol" NOOOOO
For something to be Money, it is required to be scarce. This is true of any money, including PAPER CURRENCY
Technology is used in the DESIGN of any currency to prevent Double Spend AKA Counterfeit!
When an issuer of paper currency employs special paper or printing methods and penalties for fraud they are attempting to enforce scarcity, prevent double spending.
Example; 17th century - new france, card money were printed on cards printed in france and signed by intendant, governor, and treasurer.
Double Spend problem, is not a digital problem of electronic cash - its a fundamental design problem of money generally.
76.65.23.149 ( talk) 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)