Talk:Double-spending

Wish: list of approaches to double-spending problem, compared and contrasted
Without doing original research, ha. if I recall correctly double-spending: 75.87.130.113 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * has been demonstrated as a working fraud vector against at least one subway pass card system in use in multiple major cities (as if any minor systems have subways)
 * is mitigated in the Bitcoin system by distributing the central recording authority function
 * is mitigated in the MintChip system by embedding a private key and circuitry for using it in EEPROM/FPGA devices which are too small to read and copy without destroying them

Ignore ripscams, but include bitcoins. please review and insert in appropriate section
roughly translated, please put into proper english and expend article with this.
 * Wherever double spending offers a monetary incentive, technically skilled individuals may spare no effort in exploiting potential attack vectors.
 * Such vectors are often specialised Race Condition.
 * In the Bitcoin protocol double spend is possible if the attacker succeeds in getting two contradicting transactions confirmed at the same time. Commonly, the attack is mitigated by requiring a transaction to be consistent with a certain amount of consecutive confirmations before considering it valid. An attacker would very unlikely have the relative computing power share at his hands required to confirm his fraudulent spendings before others in the distributed network invalidate either of the transactions, eliminating the illegal second spending.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmx613 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Article's lead has become indecipherable
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)jonassteinbergJonassteinberg (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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. Pinging participants of the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin_Gold. Џ 21:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral ok with me, thanks for asking. Xinbenlv (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal to merge as I think the 2018 double spend attacks article is unlikely to get any more content (as it is a single event page) and merging it will allow the broader double spend attack article to grow its content. Seems like an interesting subject and if there were a few different double spend attacks covered on one general article it might be more encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The page as it stands is not worthy of an article. There is currently some information on Bitcoin Gold that may be worth merging over, otherwise I would even suggest nominating this article for deletion. Dr-Bracket (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Empirical examples of double spending (or lack thereof)
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 Spend problem, is not a digital problem - its a design problem
"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)