Hacker News Reader

If the reward is being able to print money for yourself (that's what a double spend does), there will be very strong incentives to research a way to taper with a FIDO device and keep the results private.

This threat model would not survive the real world even at low adoption rates.

View on HN

Double spend doesn't involve printing money. Especially it doesn't automatically give you twice the amount of cryptocurrency you already had. You need some other half of the double-spend transaction to take from, and that may be tricky to do, especially at scale (and especially if you want your ill-gotten gains to be worth anything).

You can make money off of a double-spend attack, but it's not as simple as 'you double spend, then get as much money as you want'.

The threat model is heavily based on tamper-resistance of the devices. But I don't think it can't survive.

Also, tampering the device can ruin the network, but it can't print new money.

Who prints new money?

This question is open for invention. A blockchain can have no money at all. People can just play games on it and everyone will agree on the objective history of all games played.

For example, you can assume that there is a fixed amount of money initially distributed somehow (many cryptocurrencies do just that).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com