From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 14:29:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAt2M18fPgYOsfdebmU1Tk6ATnndPBn0k2PN-4fUJs1iTBTqnQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150222123428.GA6570@savin.petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1644 bytes --]
Den 22 feb 2015 13:36 skrev "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd•org>:
> Implementing it as a general purpose scripting language improvement has
> a lot of advantages, not least of which is that you no longer need to
> rely entirely on inherently unreliable P2P networking: Promise to never
> create two signatures for a specific BIP32 root pubkey and make
> violating that promise destroy and/or reallocate a fidelity bond whose
> value is locked until some time into the future. Since the fidelity bond
> is a separate pool of funds, detection of the double-spend can happen
> later.
Somebody sent me a zero-confirmation transaction, or one that got orphaned
after one block. I created a transaction spending that UTXO, and another.
So at that point I have UTXO_orphaned based on the sender's UTXO_origin and
my UTXO_old (because I've had it unspent for a long time), both in one
transaction, creating UTXO_new.
Now he doublespend UTXO_origin to create a UTXO_doublespend (which
conflicts with UTXO_orphaned). He conspires with a miner to get it into a
block.
Now what? Can my UTXO_old effectively be tainted forever because UTXO_new
got invalidated together with UTXO_orphaned? Will that transaction be a
valid proof of doublespend against a new UTXO_replacement I created?
Or otherwise, if only transactions where all UTXO's are currently valid
works as doublespend proofs, aren't you still just left without protection
against any one miner that conspires with doublespend attempting thieves?
In other words, you are unprotected and potentially at greater risk if you
create a transaction depending on another zero-confirmation transaction.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1896 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-22 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-22 8:02 Adam Back
2015-02-22 12:34 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 13:29 ` Natanael [this message]
2015-02-22 13:50 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-02-22 14:07 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 16:00 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-22 16:17 ` Natanael
2015-02-22 16:25 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-02-22 16:36 ` Natanael
2015-02-23 11:03 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-22 14:44 ` Natanael
2015-02-22 14:11 ` Adam Back
2015-02-22 14:25 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-02-22 14:33 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-22 15:18 ` joliver
2015-02-22 15:41 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAAt2M18fPgYOsfdebmU1Tk6ATnndPBn0k2PN-4fUJs1iTBTqnQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=natanael.l@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox