Thank you Simon for sharing your tests, if possible can you share TX hashes please. I would recommend to send them money post-mortem. What you did is really valuable information, however it can be classified as fraud. I really don’t want open this topic here, just suggesting to keep your record clean :-)
> the double-spent txs > had near 100% propagation on blockchain.info (who has unfortunately > purged the relevant data already) Can you please share the TX Hash > Blockcypher's "confidence factor" model(1) > under the hood - yet another one of those sybil attacking network > monitoring things Peter, I noticed on your twitter you have a lot of bad things to say about Blockcypher and their business model (which I might not full agree, but totally respect), can you share any evidence they perform any form of Sybil attack on the network, please. > On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:18 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 07:35:21AM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> You perform a valuable service with your demonstration, but you >> neglected to include the txid's to show that you actually did it. > >> Your advice is must-follow for anyone relying on an unconfirmed tx: it >> must pay a good fee and be highly relayable/minable. > > Actually, I was looking at what I believe was (part of?) this attack > yesterday in the logs on my full-RBF nodes and the txs involved *did* > have good fees and were highly relayable/minable - the double-spent txs > had near 100% propagation on blockchain.info (who has unfortunately > purged the relevant data already) > > Shapeshift.io depends on Blockcypher's "confidence factor" model(1) > under the hood - yet another one of those sybil attacking network > monitoring things - to estimate tx confirmation probability by looking > at the % of nodes a tx has propagated too. But miners frequently use > customized Bitcoin Core codebases that don't follow normal policies, so > those measurements don't actually tell you what you need to know. > > hapeshift confirmed(2) the attack - confirming that they disabled > unconfirmed tx acceptance - said they're going to "improve" their > system... It'll be interesting to see what that actually entails. > > 1) > https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/from-zero-to-hero-bitcoin-transactions-in-8-seconds-7c9edcb3b734 > 2) > https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ddkhy/bitcoindev_significant_losses_by_doublespending/ct468p7 > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 000000000000000010bf087ed645cba129e2523930d5cde636ddbae9e03aef9c > _______________________________________________ > 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
