When I first read this, it reminded me about how some proof ...

0d97beae567fcec9...

npub1pktmatjk0l8vn3jhfuwxaasjd65kn4ye9sce3egup7k993f8fg2q5tpxa6

hex

000042504f9788a849d9666f9f49ec5bd5af3e96a03add995c15a050a4b84280

nevent

nevent1qqsqqqzz2p8e0z9gf8vkvmulf8k9h4d086t2qwkan9wptgzs5juy9qqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsqm9a74et8lnkfcet578rw7cfxa2tf6jvjcvvcu5wqltzjc5n559qexratn

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-06-27T18:26:06Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

7be3e62eb782bbf879377800e3d98829e27301a5d70befaba951f6ba9231d1a2...

When I first read this, it reminded me about how some proof of stake protocols worked like NANO which I thought was interesting at one time.

If anyone tried to double spend, their double spend protection was an instant voting situation where one would be the winner, that winner would be recorded as a decision and that would be it.

Sounded good until you consider someone doing this during network disruptions. Then it's one of those court things... If you can't prove a crime the first time, you can't don't get a second chance.

In this case, it is a one off and the "checkpoint" can be many blocks behind.

But honestly the more I think about it, we don't really need a checkpoint other than to speed up IBD. Once we have a quantum resistant hashing algo in place, we just go back to the longest most proof of work chain is the winner.

Bitcoin has always been about "eventual consistency".

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "000042504f9788a849d9666f9f49ec5bd5af3e96a03add995c15a050a4b84280",
  "pubkey": "0d97beae567fcec9c6574f1c6ef6126ea969d4992c3198e51c0fac52c5274a14",
  "created_at": 1782584766,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "7be3e62eb782bbf879377800e3d98829e27301a5d70befaba951f6ba9231d1a2",
      "wss://relay.damus.io",
      "root"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "4d7842051782e0d3feb034d150adc2b6bae4ee3b49786793bffa468b6f5b96b3"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Dark Wisp"
    ],
    [
      "nonce",
      "69715",
      "16"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "When I first read this, it reminded me about how some proof of stake protocols worked like NANO which I thought was interesting at one time.\n\nIf anyone tried to double spend, their double spend protection was an instant voting situation where one would be the winner, that winner would be recorded as a decision and that would be it.\n\nSounded good until you consider someone doing this during network disruptions. Then it's one of those court things... If you can't prove a crime the first time, you can't don't get a second chance.\n\nIn this case, it is a one off and the \"checkpoint\" can be many blocks behind.\n\nBut honestly the more I think about it, we don't really need a checkpoint other than to speed up IBD. Once we have a quantum resistant hashing algo in place, we just go back to the longest most proof of work chain is the winner.\n\nBitcoin has always been about \"eventual consistency\".",
  "sig": "4a5ec40fe72e063b4fdc64b5a1af29d375d273f9cf46faffdb977ba5b232d0a32a0a0a05425959aeaa302ee10a6ab7d1a609806121a9a607ddbf3ee5ad171aeb"
}