From: Ben Reeves <support@pi•uk.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:05:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPBPUnqgV_hHYwFoB_1qXMvEaE1pM0vm8=V=AKe2n-rPFzz+mQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhb+gYMwp1OJuCHYt5=BU63=YBWOFaLLthHBkN_U-scaA@mail.gmail.com>
Assuming 50% of hashing power adopts BIP30 but the actual client
install base is relatively low the patch will likely result in a
"hard" blockchain split if someone takes advantage.
A malicious miner can produce a duplicate coinbase which the majority
of clients will accept but the majority of hashing power won't.
Spending the coinbase output after disconnection will cause the
blockchain to fork. All none BIP30 clients on the short blockchain
will be vulnerable to transaction reversal of 6 confirmations or more.
It is a relatively inexpensive attack to perform (costing the attacker
only one valid block ~$240) and could be quite disruptive. I think
this should be patched in DisconnectBlock() (if it hasn't already?)
before any protocol change - maybe a new mapByCoinbase multimap is
needed.
Thank You,
Ben Reeves
www.blockchain.info
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> as some of you may know, a vulnerability has been found in how the
> Bitcoin reference client deals with duplicate transactions. Exploiting
> it is rather complex, requires some hash power, and has no financial
> benefit for the attacker. Still, it's a security hole, and we'd like
> to fix this as soon as possible.
>
> A simple way to fix this, is adding an extra protocol rule[1]:
>
> Do not allow blocks to contain a transaction whose hash is equal to
> that of a former transaction which has not yet been completely spent.
>
> I've written about it in BIP30[2]. There is a patch for the reference
> client, which has been tested and verified to make the attack
> impossible. The change is backward compatible in the same way BIP16
> is: if a supermajority of mining power implements it, old clients can
> continue to function without risk.
>
> The purpose of this mail is asking for support for adding this rule to
> the protocol rules. If there is consensus this rule is the solution, I
> hope pools and miners can agree to update their nodes without lengthy
> coinbase-flagging procedure that would only delay a solution. So, who
> is in favor?
>
> [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules
> [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0030
>
> --
> Pieter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-29 22:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-28 16:48 Pieter Wuille
2012-02-28 17:12 ` Brautigam Róbert
2012-02-28 17:18 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-02-28 18:10 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-02-28 18:23 ` Luke-Jr
2012-02-28 20:24 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-02-28 20:35 ` Ben Reeves
2012-02-29 1:41 ` Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn
2012-02-29 16:47 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-02-29 17:02 ` Amir Taaki
2012-02-29 21:00 ` Stefan Thomas
2012-02-29 22:05 ` Ben Reeves [this message]
2012-02-29 22:38 ` Matt Corallo
2012-02-29 22:46 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-02-29 23:00 ` Ben Reeves
[not found] ` <20120229232029.GA6073@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
2012-02-29 23:45 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-03-01 10:15 ` Ben Reeves
2012-03-01 13:09 ` Ben Reeves
2012-03-01 14:27 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-03-01 17:20 ` Ben Reeves
2012-03-01 14:30 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-03-02 1:56 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-03-03 16:41 ` Pieter Wuille
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPBPUnqgV_hHYwFoB_1qXMvEaE1pM0vm8=V=AKe2n-rPFzz+mQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=support@pi$(echo .)uk.com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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