Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-20 📝 Original message:Jonathan Toomim via ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-20
📝 Original message:Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 1) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction that is
>> invalid to the new rules.
>>
>> The receiver wallet chooses what address/script to accept coins on.
>> They'll upgrade to the new softfork rules before creating an address
>> that depends on the softfork's features.
>>
>> So, not a problem.
>
>
> 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.

Pretty sure Bob's wallet will be looking for "OP_DUP OP_HASH160
<pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG" scriptSig. The SegWit-usable
outputs will (have to) look different, won't they?

Cheers,
Rusty.