@croraf I think I see your point now, after sleeping for a while and cooling down.

All I posted about shorts is rubbish and I'm the one who doesn't understand shorts.

Is that what you want to say?

There is much spam in all threats I've started now.

It think there is no way to do efficient discussion of the problem on bitcointalk or on stackexchange any more. If you are interested in discussion any more, I will come back again in this room. I'm still interested in a solution.

I think the best way to get a solution is writing my ideas clearly down, rethink them by myself and give the proof, if I still think it's correct than, to a real world friend of mine, who is deeper involved in the subject.

If your intersted in the outcome I will post about it here later.

No.

why?

I'm still confused with the short thing.

Only doing the double spending of the large transaction, I don't see how the attacker can be sure that he can realize his win.

What if the coin is worthless to fast?

You said in my "formal style" formulation, that we don't need the assumption

that the coin isn't going down to fast, why do you think we don't need this assumption?

@croraf And why are you against doing the attack with lended coins? I still think this make us independent from the value of the coin after attack!

Aha. OK.

Yes If you return your bitcoins, and they become worthless you again lose.

But if the coins are lended you give this lose back to the owner.

And so we should do "start with lended coins" instead of assumption 3 in "formal stay" proof and it works, correct?

Quite like suggested in my edit there, i've done two days ago?