It can not be! This is central to the magic of Bitcoin – it works by agreement. A large number of computers that generally run similar programming and follow a similar arrangement of instructions come to a similar end result in terms of the legitimacy of a particular exchange. In the event that one PC tries to push an exchange that doesn’t respect the guidelines, a large number of different PCs simply fake it, and the exchange is rarely noticed.
Some of these guidelines include accompanying:
The exchange should have legitimate information that is equivalent or more remarkable than the full result of the exchange. For example, to send 4 BTC for a 0.0001 spend, the address(es) I’m sending from probably won’t get less than 4.0001 BTC before. Bitcoin programming decides this by looking at the blockchain.
Data sources should no longer be exhausted. Again, Bitcoin programming will decide this by looking at the blockchain.
The block reward should be something like 25 BTC (per compound hour) and will be distributed every 210,000 blocks. Each block is expected to provide a block reward.
The first two standards are expected to avoid double spending, which is essentially advanced forging. In the event that Alice only has ten bitcoins and sends ten bitcoins to Weave, she cannot later send ten bitcoins to Charlie because the rest of the bitcoin organization will essentially reject the exchange, realizing that Alice previously sent ten bitcoins to Sway. .
The final rule limits the creation of more bitcoins than the organization previously agreed upon. Satoshi Nakamoto first characterized this standard in a relatively short time with a unique implementation of Bitcoin programming and ultimately limits the total number of Bitcoins produced to 21 million, spread over roughly 130 years. Assuming a miner created a block with a compensation of 26 bitcoins versus 25, the rest of the bitcoin organization would essentially reject it for the next new block that followed the guidelines.
This shows the way that bitcoins cannot all be created. However, there are still ways for people or organizations to misdirect themselves to receive Bitcoins when they have not actually received them.
As archived here, one such trick was effectively used to accept “bets” from a web-based betting aid called Satoshi Dice. Obviously, only administrations that provide instant results (such as download administrations or specific kinds of web betting) and do not require any confirmations are prone to this kind of trick or abuse.
Another trick, but very complicated and difficult to implement, is to weaken the merchant’s external access to the bitcoin organization and then broadcast the exchange only to the seller. The merchant would be repaid, but the exchange would not propagate across the Bitcoin organization and would not be recorded forever until access to the sender’s organization is restored. Meanwhile, the criminal could essentially send the bitcoins to another location that the person owns to retrieve the coins before the dealer’s organization’s access is restored, and the coins could never reach the sender. Finally, in the event that an individual has what is important to weaken the sender’s web approach without the merchant remaining on their guard, they will likely track down other useful ways to get cash.
In principle, Bitcoin cannot be counterfeited, and any related fraud that is conceivable is very limited in scope and requires a heightened degree of expertise.
