Hacker News Reader

Comment by rebuilder | Hacker News Reader

Could you elaborate on double-spend protection a little? I skimmed the protocol draft and came away with the impression that the goal is not so much to prevent double spending directly as it is to flag users who do attempt it, so future payees know to refuse to do business with them. Did I understand correctly?

View on HN

Exactly. Using protocols to prevent double spending hurts performance and scalability. Detect fraudsters and ignoring them is cheap.

This is a fundamental issue I believe. If you have a stable legal ecosystem you can use the law of the land to ensure that double spending has real-world consequences. Preventing double spending is expensive. Guaranteed double spending _detection_ might also be sufficient and scales horizontally.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the performance impact of double spend prevention. What algorithms have you looked at, working on this project?

we are building upon our own lightweight, scalable distributed ledger which has been in development for many years now. This ledger is based on the swift detection of double-spend behavior. You can find details on the fraud detection algorithm in our peer-reviewed paper, see https://dicg2020.github.io/papers/devos.pdf (an extended version is currently under review).

We have also performed scalability experiments on our nation-wide compute cluster to estimate the throughput of our distributed ledger. These experiments hint that our ledger is easily capable of handling 100.000+ transactions/sec.

https://standardcrypto.wordpress.com/2021/03/10/the-your-pap...

The "your papers please" argument. It's true. If you live in a world where you are compelled to present an identity for any financial transaction, then there is no need for bitcoin, to prevent double spending.

The law costs money. I feel like you're missing a critical winning game for an adversary.

This requires permanent identities, right? So compared to cash payments, this system is potentially more oppressive because you can be rendered unable to pay for things.

I imagine there are some sticky legal questions to solve there - usually this kind of intervention in a person's life would require a court order or similar.

How traceable are transactions to the payer? Is there any anonymity?

Ignoring fraudsters will only work if that causes a cost to the fraudster bigger than the gain by double spending. Basically you will have to use key pairs tied to natural persons. If there is any anonymity or pseudonymity the fraudster will just generate a new key pair and double spend again. How does this system guard against that ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com