It is vulnerable to sybil attacks or where the recipient is a victim of a proxy attack. If the recipient is not connected to a valid Network, then double spends could be allowed.
as long as this protocol is intended for use of transactions around a dollar or so I don't see that being a financially lucrative attack. However consider a large department store. If I put a "fence" around that store and control all of its outbound peer connections, I can then allow double spends for the duration of my visit at the store. In order to defend against this large retailers would have to use distributed / trusted nodes and certificates. On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:14 PM raymo via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi, > I have a proposal for improve Bitcoin TPS and privacy, here is the post. > > https://raymo-49157.medium.com/time-to-boost-bitcoin-circulation-million-transactions-per-second-and-privacy-1eef8568d180 > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5344020.0 > Can you please read it and share your idea about it. > > Cheers > Raymo > _______________________________________________ > 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
