Quote from: CIYAM on August 28, 2014, 04:44:45 AM

Quote from: wasserman99 on August 28, 2014, 01:42:39 AM

I think this depends on your definition of "double spend"

Very true - but by saying that "double spend attempts" are "double spends" unfortunately leads those with less technical understanding of Bitcoin to think that "double spends" are a "problem with Bitcoin" (and thus to completely miss the fact that Bitcoin solves the Byzantine Generals problem which is the whole reason they we even use it).

And more importantly, it ignores the context of the statement:

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 27, 2014, 03:07:33 PM

Correct. A "true" double spend, where both transactions are confirmed in the blockchain is impossible.

Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the post being responded to seems to imply that if two transactions arrive at a miner close enough together, they could somehow magically both be confirmed:

Quote from: Scoremaster on August 27, 2014, 03:02:03 PM

in the most rare circumstance and it will probably happen a few times, if everything arrives at the exact same smallest unit of time measurement used in the btc protocol, it could happen.

Read the thread, follow the context, and you'll see that the specific definition of "double spend" that was being discussed had already been established.