On 24 August 2016 22:54:47 GMT-04:00, James MacWhyte <macwh...@gmail.com> wrote: >I've always assumed honeypots were meant to look like regular, yet >poorly-secured, assets.
Not at all. Most servers have zero reason to have any Bitcoin's accessible via them, so the presence of BTC privkeys is a gigantic red flag that they are part of a honeypot. > If the intruder could identify this as a >honeypot >by the strange setup (presigned, non-standard transactions lying >around) >and was aware that the creator intended to doublespend as soon as the >transaction was discovered, wouldn't they instead prefer to not touch >anything and wait for a non-bait target to appear? Re-read my last section on the "scorched earth" disincentive to doublespend the intruder. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
