[137192] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Satoshi Nakamoto)
Sun Nov 9 14:17:09 2008
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:31:26 +0800
From: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@vistomail.com>
Reply-To: satoshi@vistomail.com
To: jamesd@echeque.com
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
James A. Donald wrote:
>OK, suppose one node incorporates a bunch of
>transactions in its proof of work, all of them honest
>legitimate single spends and another node incorporates a
>different bunch of transactions in its proof of
>work, all of them equally honest legitimate single
>spends, and both proofs are generated at about the same
>time.
>
>What happens then?
They both broadcast their blocks. All nodes receive them and keep both,=
but only work on the one they received first. We'll suppose exactly ha=
lf received one first, half the other. =20
In a short time, all the transactions will finish propagating so that ev=
eryone has the full set. The nodes working on each side will be trying =
to add the transactions that are missing from their side. When the next=
proof-of-work is found, whichever previous block that node was working =
on, that branch becomes longer and the tie is broken. Whichever side it=
is, the new block will contain the other half of the transactions, so i=
n either case, the branch will contain all transactions. Even in the un=
likely event that a split happened twice in a row, both sides of the sec=
ond split would contain the full set of transactions anyway.
It's not a problem if transactions have to wait one or a few extra cycle=
s to get into a block.=20
Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
