Re: double spend as a feature

On 25 July 2016 at 22:40, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:

> as long as the coins existed prior to the fork, right? New coins in
> either fork are specific to the fork? Those are the assumptions I
> based likening the situation to spinoff semantics on: having a
> transaction in the parent chain is pre-spinoff; after the fork a
> transaction shared by both chains can be spent in either, but each
> chain has its own separate transactions going forward. I can't receive
> a transaction in chain B and then spend that in chain A, can I?
>

This is a great video from Chris Ellis explaining exactly what happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1XiAwSpXbI

Interestingly, Jeff Garzik and other anticipated a fork leading to the
possibility of coins being spent twice.


>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 25 July 2016 at 06:15, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I suggest that conceptually it's a game changer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on the messages in this thread, it looks like Ethereum
> >> accidentally effected a "spinoff" distribution.
> >> http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spinoff.asp Not a game changer at
> >> all, unless you were previously playing a game where cryptocurrencies
> >> had a restricted set of options compared to corporations.
> >>
> >> The subject line hype about "double spend as a feature" is misleading.
> >
> >
> > "A spinoff is the creation of an independent company through the sale or
> > distribution of new shares of an existing business or division of a
> parent
> > company"
> >
> > Doesnt seem to me quite the same thing.  The chain forked, and the
> > public/private keys are active on both chains.  Thereby allowing users to
> > spend the same coins twice.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "It's like a whole other country."
>