From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC31EE8F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 05:32:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4029D2F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 05:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id a189so59555289vkh.2 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:32:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8O/1K5dq5VtU+wEzJTiDg+D5sQZGO6v8NJQk8EdVrNw=; b=RbBaOF5Y8Yd2LKf9G6/rlMkElI5dxgv1yC3kr4TqJ4ZCviEpexxxAOSg7K1CbRHGSQ sTejLIZ5TpEsj3ZkZNJVcEfOwuOTNmtDH7eUG8T7OjPjpFJf6C9XEZYlc4d63f0UsZ2I 2G4OPqMEBCSTexuxGelYtNqPbZqZm/JjRYtuzGPFKKpHwJwPUX8NvyjRhDw0/IQ0Ca1G L5b/fOX2AMQuJsw2unCbveQ97+R5p2GhJZ+43dz8gR+YWS5l0YU5G8iNDpHEWUpPkVFo GpXMfQIxssm7BBmZ+KYUXgoMzCPMBS4tEa655p/fw0h6ACTkGnpLyglwYNZ0zUFjXmRc W12g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8O/1K5dq5VtU+wEzJTiDg+D5sQZGO6v8NJQk8EdVrNw=; b=ExdJUfOcnBPCuw9qMFclwPufBsu31WlYmddUZFxbBsuoqTnu9cvugYgCt/rDQCj1LN nDeJILKF7vmvbUdevLBCudVFSppfu6iQQP7RDwVBIrGmmpxDNH3sUq/0l64OosPg+/0U vuNvpSblVH+LAwKOLTENtGV4aeaBe4DtzbsVa9EKKaogBMTT3nKNbwhVNk9X5jrtbXZw nPe1pzx+JooFVPmXxWcK1xLyxdsXIW51Db+ZMCnXrWDw/XiUUFmEpD2unt4M0MG/yjYm zwzgc9qfL7VW8HrWcc/ePwNCRQpBXHBShebg5srX+tWdqw1iTzz7gOrJXVfAYatqByON J01g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmFqXqIV0lVk+8gAoz7/mzbAPdT8tMQQQvQAIMsemZfu0nd3E5Asj07M4aoCL/WxN8qbr+oquO9RZay6LG57mixScVjKw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.140.199 with SMTP id o190mr1049731vkd.63.1450416751247; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.236.70 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:32:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6bc6451f3d9cfb5e5a1ba15356c229bc@xbt.hk> References: <6bc6451f3d9cfb5e5a1ba15356c229bc@xbt.hk> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:32:31 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: jl2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 05:32:32 -0000 To me it's getting clearer and clearer that th frintier between softforks and hardforks it's softer than we thought. Aoftforks should start having a minimum median time deplayment day (be it height or median time, I don't care, just not header.nTime). TYDGFHdfthfg64565$%^$ On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:10 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-12-17 21:47 =E5=AF=AB=E5= =88=B0: >> >> Mallory wants to defraud Bob with a 1 BTC payment for some beer. Bob >> runs the old rules. Bob creates a p2pkh address for Mallory to use. >> Mallory takes 1 BTC, and creates an invalid SegWit transaction that >> Bob cannot properly validate and that pays into one of Mallory's >> wallets. Mallory then immediately spends the unconfirmed transaction >> into Bob's address. Bob sees what appears to be a valid transaction >> chain which is not actually valid. >> >> Clueless Carol is one of the 4.9% of miners who forgot to upgrade her >> mining node. Carol sees that Mallory included an enormous fee in his >> transactions, so Carol makes sure to include both transactions in her >> block. >> >> Mallory gets free beer. >> >> Anything I'm missing? > > > You miss the fact that 0-conf is not safe, neither 1-conf. What you are > suggesting is just a variation of Finney attack. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev