Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

From: Jorge Timón <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:32:31 +0100

To me it's getting clearer and clearer that th frintier between
softforks and hardforks it's softer than we thought.
Aoftforks should start having a minimum median time deplayment day (be
it height or median time, I don't care, just not header.nTime).
TYDGFHdfthfg64565$%^$

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:10 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-17 21:47 寫到:
>>
>> Mallory wants to defraud Bob with a 1 BTC payment for some beer. Bob
>> runs the old rules. Bob creates a p2pkh address for Mallory to use.
>> Mallory takes 1 BTC, and creates an invalid SegWit transaction that
>> Bob cannot properly validate and that pays into one of Mallory's
>> wallets. Mallory then immediately spends the unconfirmed transaction
>> into Bob's address. Bob sees what appears to be a valid transaction
>> chain which is not actually valid.
>>
>> Clueless Carol is one of the 4.9% of miners who forgot to upgrade her
>> mining node. Carol sees that Mallory included an enormous fee in his
>> transactions, so Carol makes sure to include both transactions in her
>> block.
>>
>> Mallory gets free beer.
>>
>> Anything I'm missing?
>
>
> You miss the fact that 0-conf is not safe, neither 1-conf. What you are
> suggesting is just a variation of Finney attack.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev