Well it isn't mathematical so I don't see how there could be a mathematical proof.
If you go by the assumption that a person is always trying to gain value, then you either have to have some disincentive to double-spend, or make it economically difficult to double spend (require a massive amount of mining equipment to double-spend after a few confirmations).
I'm guessing you're referring to 0 confirmation double spends. There is a theoretical solution to this, which is to have a disincentive to double-spending. In this theoretical update/cryptocurrency, if a miner finds two transactions that comprise a double-spend, the miner is given the entire transaction. This makes the double-spender not want to double-spend. In addition to this, the seller could require that the buyer have a certain amount of change. For example, the transaction could give $50 to the seller, $0.01 to the miner and $50 back in change. If he attempted a double-spend, he would lose as much as the seller.
Topic: Is there mathematical proof? - page 2. (Read 2504 times)
Is there mathematical proof that the double-spending problem can be solved only by a trusted party, be it network majority, central trusted party, something in between like a trustweb, or even directly trusting the sender of the money? (Yes, if you trust the sender, there is no need for a third party.)
cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending
From intuition, it is quite clear that without trust, the double-spending problem can't be solved. But intuition can often mislead. For that reason: Is there mathematical proof that trust is an implicit requirement for solving the double-spending problem?
cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending
From intuition, it is quite clear that without trust, the double-spending problem can't be solved. But intuition can often mislead. For that reason: Is there mathematical proof that trust is an implicit requirement for solving the double-spending problem?
Jump to: