Although the title of your article refers to better security for bitcoin, it does not have any such information in your actual acticle. The article speaks of shortcomings, which in reality are security features, and need not be observed for every transaction if you're not willing to deal with the related shortcomings.

Then the article speaks about double spending, which is what those "shortcomings" are in place to prevent. A function that they perform *VERY* well, even if a person chooses to wait for only a single confirmation (10 minutes at most normally, usually more like 5). With only a single confirmation, it is *VERY* difficult to roll things back and manage to spend your funds twice.. It's certainly not worth the cost in computing power for lower end transactions (the only type that should rely on a single confirmation).. Even with a huge allotment of resources to roll back this single low value transaction it is very unlikely that the attempt will be successful.. As time goes on, and the economy grows, the difficulty of attempting this will increase as well because the "bitcoin computer" will grow with it as well.. Bitcoin is already largest distributed comping project in the world.

By the time you reach the 6 confirmations level (1 hour), the possibility of double spending of those funds is pretty close to unimaginable.. The proposed cure to the proposed security loophole is never actually detailed in even the most general sense in your article eithe

Jack Barth - 25.09.12

Artikel lesen