The double expense attack: disconnect the fact from fashion
Ethereum, one of the world's largest and most successful blockchain platforms in the world, is often advertised as the only cryptocurrency that is susceptible to double expense attacks. However, a more precise examination of the past transactions of Ethereum shows that it was not attacked by such an attack. In fact, the probability of a double expense on Bitcoin, which was once considered the main objective, is extremely low.
The double expense attack: a definition
A double expense attack is simply verified if an attacker spends the same cryptocurrency twice. This can happen in different ways, even when two or more parts use the same private key to send money together or if a single transaction is sent several times with different inputs.
History of Ethereum: No double expense attack 
Despite his popularity and his widespread adoption, there were no documented cases of double spending attacks on Ethereum. This may seem surprising, since Bitcoin was originally considered susceptible to such an attack. However, the real reason for this lack of success is due to a combination of factors.
A key factor is that Ethereum design allows greater flexibility and control than transactions than Bitcoin. For example, it is possible to create the intelligent contractual system of Ethereum developers, the complex logic and the rules in their contracts, which makes it more difficult for an aggressor to perform different transactions with the same input.
Another reason is that Bitcoin's underlying network architecture should mainly prevent double -cost attacks. The block time of 1 block for 10 minutes and the use of a public capacity makes practically impossible for an attacker manipulating transactions without being recognized.
Waiting for confirmations: a myth?
The concern for the wait for confirmations before continuing with transactions is also a common topic that connects cryptocurrencies. However, there is no evidence that the idea that double -expense attacks can be prevented by waiting for several confirmations.
In fact, waiting for confirmations, it can actually increase the risk of a double -shopping attack in some cases. If an attacked user awaits too long between transactions, he could be able to manipulate the blockchain, to believe that the first transaction has been confirmed if it is not so. This can lead to unexpected results and potential safety violations.
Conclusion: it is not necessary to wait for the confirmations
Although the story of Ethereum of double spending attacks is fascinating, there are no documents documented on the platform. The probability of a successful double expense attack on Bitcoin remains extremely low thanks to its design and network architecture.
In addition, the wait for confirmations can increase the risk of such an attack in other cryptocurrencies. It is important to understand that encryption and blockchain networks are complex systems that are carefully taken into consideration during the execution of the transactions.
In light of these results, it is not necessary to wait several confirmations before continuing with Ethereum or another cryptocurrency transaction. Instead, focus on maintaining a healthy understanding of the underlying technology and its restrictions, as well as on the best practices for safe and responsible use.