News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive by fogof on Monday July 05, 2021 @11:01AM (#27738656)
Well let's say we do things this way, and I double spend a transaction, sending one to Alice and one to Bob. Suppose Alice waits t seconds after receiving the transaction, and if she doesn't see any double spends in that time, she accepts that the coin is hers and she then sends me something in return.

One second before Alice "confirms" my transaction, I can send out my transaction to Bob. Since my message takes time to propagate through the network, it won't reach Alice soon enough and she will think I've paid her, and she'll send me whatever I was paying for. But other people will see both these transactions within t seconds of each other. They won't know which they should believe is correct, and they might not accept payment from Alice in the future.

Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive by DennisP on Monday July 05, 2021 @11:11AM (#27738766)
The same thing happens in PoW networks. You have to wait several blocks to gain confidence that a transaction won't be reverted.

In Ethereum's PoS, by waiting a similar amount of time you actually get finality; at that point your transaction cannot be reverted without a third of total stake being destroyed.

Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive by sparkie on Monday July 05, 2021 @01:00PM (#27739841)
Unless Vitalik proposes a rollback.
Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive by DennisP on Tuesday July 06, 2021 @12:24PM (#27750656)
And gets support for that rollback from a large majority of the community.

Given that level of community support, the same could happen in any PoW network.

Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive by rmtech on Monday July 05, 2021 @11:29AM (#27738944)
Yeah, good point. If the attacker knows how long each person will wait, then they can exploit that.