damian at willtech.com.au [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-02-20 📝 Original message: Agreed, you cannot rely ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-02-20
📝 Original message:
Agreed, you cannot rely on a replacement transaction would somehow
invalidate a previous version of it, it has been spoken into the gossip
and exists there in mempools somewhere if it does, there is no guarantee
that anyone has ever heard of the replacement transaction as there is no
consensus about either the previous version of the transaction or its
replacement until one of them is mined and the block accepted. -DA.
On 2022-02-20 04:20, darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by
>> getting an
>> out-of-date version of a tx mined.
>
> It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date
> transaction, if
> you signed and broadcasted it in the first place. You can't rely on
> the fact that
> a replacement transaction would somehow invalidate a previous version
> of it.
📝 Original message:
Agreed, you cannot rely on a replacement transaction would somehow
invalidate a previous version of it, it has been spoken into the gossip
and exists there in mempools somewhere if it does, there is no guarantee
that anyone has ever heard of the replacement transaction as there is no
consensus about either the previous version of the transaction or its
replacement until one of them is mined and the block accepted. -DA.
On 2022-02-20 04:20, darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by
>> getting an
>> out-of-date version of a tx mined.
>
> It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date
> transaction, if
> you signed and broadcasted it in the first place. You can't rely on
> the fact that
> a replacement transaction would somehow invalidate a previous version
> of it.