1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Qu6NO-00054q-Kx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:27:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Qu6NN-0001EA-SV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:27:30 +0000
Received: by mail-qw0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 5so2111138qwh.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.27.20 with SMTP id g20mr877335qac.178.1313688449651; Thu,
18 Aug 2011 10:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.114.206 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1313686076.6324.140258131139585@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <CABsx9T0AgUL+rphhB8YUVHDGJnc0TmaYG=kjt7Pz1yrwLjBbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1313686076.6324.140258131139585@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:27:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRxNiGYETKJJ-o=z=ZwBMR5Sa=yF54AXeV=VgP-bsTT8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: theymos <theymos@mm.st>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Qu6NN-0001EA-SV
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] From the forums: one-confirmation attack
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:27:30 -0000
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:47 PM, theymos <theymos@mm.st> wrote:
> To make this more difficult, nodes that receive new transactions via
> blocks should relay the new transactions as if they had received them
> normally. Then the double-spend transaction will be rejected by most of
> the network because the other version is already widely-known.
Not that helpful. In that attack pattern the attacker can release the
block and the conflicting transaction at the same time (to different
nodes, of course). They can also inject the conflicting transaction
into many places in the network at once.
|
