On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Arthur Gervais
wrote:
> affecting the same Bitcoin version. However we think it is
> complementary, since our reported problem has nothing to do with fees,
> dust, nor is it necessary to send the two double-spending transaction at
> the same time. In our setting, d
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Arthur Gervais
wrote:
> Our only intention is to raise the awareness for merchants who have to
> accept zero-confirmation transactions. They should be aware of the
> signature encoding difference between Bitcoin versions and the possible
> consequences.
Certainly
On 6/27/13 1:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Arthur Gervais
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dear Bitcoin developers,
>>
>> We would like to report a vulnerability which might lead, under some
>> assumptions, to a double-spending a
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Arthur Gervais
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Bitcoin developers,
>
> We would like to report a vulnerability which might lead, under some
> assumptions, to a double-spending attack in a fast payment scenario.
> The vulnerability
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Bitcoin developers,
We would like to report a vulnerability which might lead, under some
assumptions, to a double-spending attack in a fast payment scenario.
The vulnerability has been introduced due to signature encoding
incompatibilities betwee
5 matches
Mail list logo
