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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
