Good morning Peter and Jeremy,
> Good morning Peter and Jeremy,
>
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 05:20:19PM +, darosior wrote:
> >
> > > > Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by
> > > > getting an
> > > > out-of-date version of a tx mined.
> > >
> > > It's not an "attac
Good morning Peter and Jeremy,
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 05:20:19PM +, darosior wrote:
>
> > > Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by getting
> > > an
> > > out-of-date version of a tx mined.
> >
> > It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date tran
Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Billy,
>
> > > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more
> dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published
> >
> > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 05:20:19PM +, darosior wrote:
> > Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by getting an
> > out-of-date version of a tx mined.
>
> It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date transaction, if
> you signed and broadcasted it in the
> Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by getting an
> out-of-date version of a tx mined.
It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date transaction, if
you signed and broadcasted it in the first place. You can't rely on the fact
that
a replacement transac
Good morning Billy,
> > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more dangerous
> >from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published
>
> Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra
> transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:38:27PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> > As I said, it's a new kind of pinning attack, distinct from other types
> of pinning attack.
>
> I think pinning is "formally defined" as sequences of transactions which
> prevent or make it less likely for you to make any progress
> "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more dangerous
from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published
Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra
transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't
free (for someone
