0
I am very new to bitcoin and sorry if the following is too simple. As far as I understood, if there is a double spend problem, the longest chain - collecting most work - will take over. However, suppose this chain happens to extent the fraudulent, then the there is no way for the network to be aware of the fraud unless some user complains that he did not recieve the money and finds a way to tell the network. Am I right ? if so how can he inform the network, I mean blockchain-speaking. Is it a just a matter of a public information taht would ruin the trust on blockchain and that gives an incentive not to be fraudulent ?
thank you for your response. So, if I understand well, if a falsy transaction is stored in the longest chain, then it is ok from the bitcoin network consistency point of view. So, can we say that if the money that a user should have correctly received is orphaned, then the only problem is the trust on the network to validate the good transaction. Because, if this is not that trust that matters if there is no particular problem to integrate a falsy transaction, why worrying at all of double spend ? – paris inserm – 2017-11-11T21:22:30.693
Your comment is very difficult to understand but I will try my best. First of all, there is no such thing as a "falsy" or "false" transaction. By "false transaction" I assume that you mean the transaction is a double spend to us humans. To the network, both transactions are valid but only one can be included in the blockchain. The double spend problem that Bitcoin solves is not the double spend to humans problem but rather the actual double spend problem when two conflicting transactions are considered final. – Andrew Chow – 2017-11-11T21:28:33.607
thank you for your response, but it is still very not clear. If double spend is not a problem for us, but a problem for the network, what it the interest for a user to attempt a double spend ? – paris inserm – 2017-11-12T10:35:43.960