On 9/25/2014 7:37 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
Of course you wouldn't want nodes to propagate alerts without
independently verifying them
How would a node independently verify a double-spend alert, other than
by having access to an actual signed double-spend?
#4570 relays the first double-spend AS
Something like that would be a great help for SPV clients that can't
detect double spends on their own. (still limited of course to sybil
attack concerns)
Aaron Voisine
breadwallet.com
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
What's to stop an attacker from
Probably the first double-spend attempt (i.e., the second transaction to spend
the same output(s) as another tx already in the mempool) would still need to be
relayed. A simple double-spend alert wouldn't work because it could be
forged. But after there have been two attempts to spend the same
What's to stop an attacker from broadcasting millions of spends of the same
output(s) and overwhelming nodes with slower connections? Might it be a better
strategy not to relay the actual transactions (after the first) but rather only
propagate (once) some kind of double-spend alert?
On
Of course you wouldn't want nodes to propagate alerts without
independently verifying them, otherwise anyone could just issue alerts
for every new transaction.
Aaron Voisine
breadwallet.com
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
Probably the first
5 matches
Mail list logo
