Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-09-25 📝 Original message:What's to stop an attacker ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-09-25
📝 Original message: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 Thursday, 25 September 2014, at 7:02 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> There was some discussion of having nodes relay double-spends in order
> to alert the network about double spend attempts.
>
> A lot more users will be using SPV wallets in the future, and one of
> the techniques SPV clients use to judge how likely a transaction is to
> be confirmed is if it propagates across the network. I wonder if and
> when double-spend relaying is introduced, if nodes should also send
> BIP61 reject messages or something along those lines to indicate which
> transactions those nodes believe to be invalid, but are relaying
> anyway.
>
> This would be subject to sybil attacks, as is monitoring propagation,
> however it does still increase the cost of performing a 0 confirmation
> double spend attack on an SPV client above just relaying double-spends
> without indicating if a node believes the transaction to be valid.
>
> Aaron Voisine
> breadwallet.com
📝 Original message: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 Thursday, 25 September 2014, at 7:02 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> There was some discussion of having nodes relay double-spends in order
> to alert the network about double spend attempts.
>
> A lot more users will be using SPV wallets in the future, and one of
> the techniques SPV clients use to judge how likely a transaction is to
> be confirmed is if it propagates across the network. I wonder if and
> when double-spend relaying is introduced, if nodes should also send
> BIP61 reject messages or something along those lines to indicate which
> transactions those nodes believe to be invalid, but are relaying
> anyway.
>
> This would be subject to sybil attacks, as is monitoring propagation,
> however it does still increase the cost of performing a 0 confirmation
> double spend attack on an SPV client above just relaying double-spends
> without indicating if a node believes the transaction to be valid.
>
> Aaron Voisine
> breadwallet.com