I suspect no matter what a bad actor could create a bad app that way. Regardless of any protocol. So in other network start sending the users money to burn addresses etc.
I think the network will be much faster than a human can retract a payment. If we allowed retractions then we allow folk to try double spends. So we cannot tell the difference between a bad actor and a mistake, network side it’s an attack attempt and we kill it.
It will mean wallet providers would be best being OSS and the code available. It should be relatively simple code to audit and now with AI being better we can audit code quickly for such things.
Great to read that a transfer can be built completely offline and that there is a simple wallet.
I do wonder though if a double spend can’t just be allocated to the 70% or randomly be farmed as a punishment? Both options would seem more favorable to the network and the honest users, maybe.
Can’t wait for the simple wallet to have multisig & 2FA
That would perhaps mean the network can create or redirect money and I think we are in a good place here with the network. Currently it cannot create anything. All it can do is give back data (which is all valdiatable by the client) or not.
It’s quite neat and almost allows us to replace the network with a big server that allows data to be dumped to it and it looks after it, but the server cannot create stuff.
Oh hang on That is Safe, cause folk own big servers and we know how badly that goes wrong.
In addition we cannot ban folk from using this network. So we are indeed back at the original vision.
Yeah this would end up either inflating the supply, or punishing the Network, rather than the double-spender. It would be a cheap and easy way to attack the economy.
So the cost needs to be imposed on the malice, not absorbed elsewhere.
What I actually meant was that the spend (so not the double spend) would be allocated, because the double spend was detected, this would not inflate the supply.
Maybe if tokens become inaccessible (they are not really used for their purpose, to be used in the SAFE economy). One could counter that, with that it creates scarcity so brings up the price. A state actor might use that, to maybe make sum SAFE inaccessible forever for their citizens by double-spending it. It moves elsewhere, it’s useful elsewhere in the SAFE economy. Just my clueless pov…
p.s.
I’m happier if the gov double spend my 10 gazillion MAID and it goes to other SAFERs, the ants collectively still win.
That looks really good - respect to the Maidsafe team
I am not sure if I understand correctly, because there are a lot of changes in the new network. But if we can create a transfer completely offline, what if the token spender issues a few dbc offline in close time?
Then will the first of these several transfers, that get connected to the network, and enough peers on the network accept these signed spends, be a valid transaction, and the rest be destroyed?
I understand, that until you connect to the network and approve the expenses by the appropriate number of peers, you cannot be sure, that the transfer is valid - so what do offline transfers give us, e.g. in the context of the risk of double or multiple spending?
Presumably the wallet(s) will have features to prevent spending more than the wallet actually is actually holding the last time it was on-line?
Any attempt to do otherwise is a malicious act.
That adds more code in what needs to be simple and robust.
And anyway I really like the idea of punishing the greedy by making us all (marginally) better off
That is Safe, cause folk own big servers and we know how badly that goes wrong.
