Timeline for How can you have side chains and still protect against double spending?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2017 at 19:43 | comment | added | ben75 | What I mean is if all participants in the side chain are good actors and don't try to double-spend, there is no reason to not being able to re-connect all transactions easily (scenario 3). As soon as there is a double-spend, reattachment of all other valid transactions will be more difficult (but it can be done).(scenario 2) | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 18:41 | comment | added | Spamalot | So in case 2 it seems you are saying that double spend will only be detected "eventually" but that sounds like you are saying that double spend can take place. Why do you say the side chain needs to be managed by a bad node? If it was a good node that is not checking the main tangle they would also be fooled. | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 18:39 | vote | accept | Spamalot | ||
| Dec 7, 2017 at 13:32 | history | answered | ben75 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |