At 11:24 PM 12/3/00 -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Adam Back wrote:
>>The protocols you list are online. Not that this is a bad thing -- I
>>kind of prefer the online idea -- rather than the "and then you go to
>>jail" implications of fraud tracing in the offline protocols. Plus
>>you have a risk of accidentally double spending if your computer
>>crashes or something.
>
>I think that would depend on the banker. "Bob spent this hundred
>dollars three times," muses Alice. "Check and see if he's got
>overdraft protection for the extra two hundred... if he doesn't,
>then put it on his credit card with a fifteen dollar loan orignation
>fee and charge him two percent a month...." Jail time, in most
>cases, probably just isn't profitable for the bankers. After all,
The issue isn't whether jail or just extra charges are the
appropriate remedy for double-spending - it's that the
offline methods generally rely on encoding a user's name
in the coins so you can tell who did the double spending,
which not only adds a lot of administrative overhead but
requires that you have a system of identification of your users.
Some online methods also do the "identify and punish" approach;
others do the far simpler "first one to grab the money wins" approach
to double-spending, which is better for anonymity,
though it imposes different risks on the users.
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
