News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by thaumasiotes on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @07:47PM (#17139553)
> I see Bitcoin moving toward an intermediary system where you have a "Bitcoin balance" with a "Bitcoin bank" that allows you to make immediate transactions and takes on the risk and time delay of settling these transactions on the blockchain over the course of the next day or two.

How would this system differ from an ordinary bank in the system we have now?

Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by lend000 on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @07:51PM (#17139584)
In our current system, we have centralized, government bank run clearing houses that you cannot use (which Bitcoin could hypothetically replace). For a Bitcoin-based financial system, you can opt to pay higher fees and clear transactions on your own, or store your wealth in your own wallets and take on the management effort and fees in exchange for autonomy.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by CydeWeys on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @07:49PM (#17139566)
It's still trustless, decentralized, yadda yadda.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by thaumasiotes on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @07:58PM (#17139627)
In what sense is a system where you hold all your bitcoins in a "bitcoin bank" decentralized or trustless?
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by CydeWeys on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @08:13PM (#17139716)
The second layer solutions such as Lightning Network don't require you letting other people hold your Bitcoin. They're still decentralized and trustless.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by hndamien on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @08:33PM (#17139855)
But they also require observation for cheating because time matters in the execution of contract settlement when you have bad actors. It is still trustless though.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by CydeWeys on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @08:52PM (#17139966)
You've always had to protect against cheating though; what's changed? The standard advice from as far back as I can remember is to wait six confirmations on transactions, more for big transactions, and 120 for freshly minted coins.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by hndamien on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @09:22PM (#17140166)
The difference here is you can just wait long and you are good. In the case of lightning network there is a time limit. If you wait too long and don't notice what happened/ is happening you are cooked.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by codetrotter on Thursday May 24, 2018 @08:21AM (#17143231)
> In the case of lightning network there is a time limit. If you wait too long and don't notice what happened/ is happening you are cooked.

Could you expand a bit more on this?

Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by hndamien on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:33AM (#17187945)
Essentially, in the case we of somebody cheating you, they would broadcast a transaction co-signed by you that would close the channel in their favor. This wouldn’t be effective immediately but would have a time component associated from when the channel was opened. To prevent this state from closing out this way, you would be able to broadcast the proof of the actual offchain ledger balance (with the valid signatures for all transactions) and the co-signed transaction to close the channel. For all of this proof, you would also get to take the cheaters money, further disincentivisimg this behavior. However, if the time ran out before you noticed, none of you proof and signed offchain transactions would matter.
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M... by bo1024 on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @08:05PM (#17139673)
Right -- it would start looking like the traditional banking system, just sitting over Bitcoin rather than state-sponsored currency. (Not saying whether this is a desirable direction or not, just what I would expect to happen.)