<p>The double-spending problem had been unsolved in decentralized protocols for decades. It seems unlikely that a second (different) solution would suddenly materialize.</p>

<p>It never was a problem in centralized setups, where the central entity would provide a referee function.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-07T19:03:30.500Z
Didn't ripple do it? Not going into the merit of if it is better or worse, but it is an alternative solution, correct?
Peter Mel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-07T19:57:12.527Z
Quoting Bitcoin (the stackexchange user) : "Ripple is effectively completely centralized. –  Bitcoin Sep 4 at 8:21". Your question doesn't make sense of you allow for centralized solutions, so I'm assuming you're asking about a decentralized solution.
Jannes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-07T22:07:24.970Z
@Jannes You are correct. For a centralized solution the double-spending problem does not make any sense. So what is all the hype around ripple? Did they solve the double-spending solution or not?
Peter Mel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-07T23:36:24.313Z
They're just trying to hijack the bitcoin success to promote their own stuff. Up to the point of claiming with a straight face that it is decentralized. You see that a lot in bitcoin space, or any space where money is involved. Always beware of the vultures.
Jannes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-06T22:26:05.350Z
2015-09-06T22:26:05.350Z
Murch
<p>The proof-of-work solution is simple but has many drawbacks (waste of time, energy and uncertainties about its security in the future).</p>

<p>The consensus solutions proposed by Ripple/Stellar are too complex, and with complexity also comes uncertainty/risk. (See Stellar catastrophic failure!)</p>

<p>What do you think are the chances of someone coming with a simpler solution, out of the box, something much more straightforward that no-one has thought about it?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-04T08:21:19.947Z
Ripple is effectively completely centralized.
Claris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-04T08:57:15.223Z
@Bitcoin That doesn't really act as an example of why it *can't* be done, because avoiding centralization was never one of the goals of Ripple.
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-04T09:00:10.343Z
@NickODell Mostly pointing out that Ripple/Stellar being complex isn't an argument against it being a replacement decentralized consensus.
Claris
<bitcoin-core><ripple><doublespend><proof-of-work><consensus>
What are the chances of someone coming up with a new and simple/out-of-the-box solution for the double-spending problem?
Peter Mel
# What are the chances of someone coming up with a new and simple/out-of-the-box solution for the double-spending problem?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-09-04)

The proof-of-work solution is simple but has many drawbacks (waste of time, energy and uncertainties about its security in the future).

The consensus solutions proposed by Ripple/Stellar are too complex, and with complexity also comes uncertainty/risk. (See Stellar catastrophic failure!)

What do you think are the chances of someone coming with a simpler solution, out of the box, something much more straightforward that no-one has thought about it?

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, ripple, doublespend, proof-of-work, consensus

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Ripple is effectively completely centralized.  
> **username_2**: @Bitcoin That doesn't really act as an example of why it *can't* be done, because avoiding centralization was never one of the goals of Ripple.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 Mostly pointing out that Ripple/Stellar being complex isn't an argument against it being a replacement decentralized consensus.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-09-06. Score: 3

The double-spending problem had been unsolved in decentralized protocols for decades. It seems unlikely that a second (different) solution would suddenly materialize.

It never was a problem in centralized setups, where the central entity would provide a referee function.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Didn't ripple do it? Not going into the merit of if it is better or worse, but it is an alternative solution, correct?  
> **username_4**: Quoting Bitcoin (the stackexchange user) : "Ripple is effectively completely centralized. –  Bitcoin Sep 4 at 8:21". Your question doesn't make sense of you allow for centralized solutions, so I'm assuming you're asking about a decentralized solution.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 You are correct. For a centralized solution the double-spending problem does not make any sense. So what is all the hype around ripple? Did they solve the double-spending solution or not?  
> **username_4**: They're just trying to hijack the bitcoin success to promote their own stuff. Up to the point of claiming with a straight face that it is decentralized. You see that a lot in bitcoin space, or any space where money is involved. Always beware of the vultures.  

---

