Hacker News Reader

Comment by nighthawk24 | Hacker News Reader

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/dry028/hows_an_bch_0_c...

Thanks. I'm not sure I understood the answer given in the specific post you're liking to (or at least, I don't see how it answers my question). A following response linked to this story: https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-... which gives a pretty good answer.

There are 2 approaches to Bitcoin Network usage in play. Bitcoin Core team went with RBF(Replace-By-Fee) which gives rise to the double spending problem as the funds can be re-directed before a transaction gets in to a block. And Bitcoin Cash protocol implementation removed the RBF to support trust in 0-confirmation. There are even more optimizations in BCH implementation of Bitcoin, you can review it here https://cash.coin.dance/development

From my quite limited understanding, RBF basically allows to cancel a transaction (since you can set the fee to something that would never be accepted in a block) which is even worse than a regular double spending, because in the end, nothing at all is spent.

But even without RBF, there's nothing stopping you from spending the same coins online and in a restaurant at the same time. I'm not even sure if a restaurant would know that you and you're friend aren't actually spending the same money twice for your respective meals.

0-conf transactions have timestamps and the receiving wallet/node checks for the tree of transactions to even allow the spending of unconfirmed transactions up to a limit of 25 for now, there is on-going research and testing to up this limit to 500 that was sponsored by SatoshiDice https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1181980303033692162

For a list of transactions trying to double spend BCH and failing at it, see this https://doublespend.cash/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com