📅 Original date posted:2015-12-19 📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at ...

Andrew [ARCHIVE] /

npub1l89…m88x

2023-06-07 17:46:48

in reply to nevent1q…puhp

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-19
📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> What do you mean a valid transaction chain? If Bob is fully validating
(even with old software), he should see that Mallory's signature is not on
a transaction with his address.

Do you mean Mallory creates a regular transaction as well as an
Anyone-can-spend segwit transaction that results in double spending in the
same block?

Sorry not sure what I'm missing...

> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151219/7dec3138/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1l899vmy2zhg9zr96jvnxt85ayddd26qu36m02k22759e9djqldnqrhm88x

Seen on

wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:46:48

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "51fcb9da1a35b9df71e4b9917341997faec110652b336eaacc01c59d9c08d69c", "pubkey": "f9ca566c8a15d0510cba9326659e9d235ad5681c8eb6f5594af50b92b640fb66", "created_at": 1686160008, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "98cf2e35838fa134ae6f1ae02856ea7c4d6d5aae2f9a5a6272379073f8e32519", "", "root" ], [ "e", "223156c59aee4b0a404a73230763788341f0c5cfac70ef0f2b3b3f4c20a0910d", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "94ba46cdbb14c3443fcc2e1278b41ad6bc36a2d595149d6940652dab7e162523" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction that is\n\u003e invalid to the new rules.\n\u003e\n\u003e The receiver wallet chooses what address/script to accept coins on.\n\u003e They'll upgrade to the new softfork rules before creating an address\n\u003e that depends on the softfork's features.\n\u003e\n\u003e So, not a problem.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Mallory wants to defraud Bob with a 1 BTC payment for some beer. Bob runs\n\u003e the old rules. Bob creates a p2pkh address for Mallory to use. Mallory\n\u003e takes 1 BTC, and creates an invalid SegWit transaction that Bob cannot\n\u003e properly validate and that pays into one of Mallory's wallets. Mallory then\n\u003e immediately spends the unconfirmed transaction into Bob's address. Bob sees\n\u003e what appears to be a valid transaction chain which is not actually valid.\n\u003e\n\u003e What do you mean a valid transaction chain? If Bob is fully validating\n(even with old software), he should see that Mallory's signature is not on\na transaction with his address.\n\nDo you mean Mallory creates a regular transaction as well as an\nAnyone-can-spend segwit transaction that results in double spending in the\nsame block?\n\nSorry not sure what I'm missing...\n\n\n\u003e Clueless Carol is one of the 4.9% of miners who forgot to upgrade her\n\u003e mining node. Carol sees that Mallory included an enormous fee in his\n\u003e transactions, so Carol makes sure to include both transactions in her\n\u003e block.\n\u003e\n\u003e Mallory gets free beer.\n\u003e\n\u003e Anything I'm missing?\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nPGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151219/7dec3138/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "36d61955046eeabdd0eb21221ee95ba1817e2bb73cf326a5a6cf9c5f1e429a37c62d0597246ff1b948dedade089a5a98ed495debc2023716e939483b4da58c9f" }