📅 Original date posted:2015-03-18
📝 Original message:Den 18 mar 2015 23:38 skrev "Dennis Sullivan" <dennis.jm.sullivan at gmail.com
>:
>
> Hello. This is my first time posting to this list. I wanted to ask your
opinions on something relating to confirmation times.
>
> I recently read about a "transaction locking" proposal which claims to
make it possible to accept 0-conf transactions with guarantee they will get
mined. This seems rather dubious to me, because if there was merit to the
system, I would have already expected to see discussion on this list
regarding it.
Sounds like it would be weak to sybil attacks (deterministically choosing
my own nodes sounds great!), and of course Finney attacks (single-block
reversal) and defecting miners (what are you gonna do, punish miners with
limited network connectivity as well? You'll risk forking the network).
Zero-conf is only safe if nobody's actively trying to attack you. It has no
inherent security in and of itself. For low values the risk is usually
tolerated. For large values there's too much risk of making yourself a
target.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150318/89142b7c/attachment.html>;
Natanael [ARCHIVE] /
npub179…lpmjt
2023-06-07 15:32:11
in reply to nevent1q…9z2q
Author Public Key
npub1798ncudyucap9jzzujjsgufx8tdykm8auzfledjcs6f6wf4ekqvq8lpmjtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:11Event JSON
{
"id": "ada3db5cf5a630f8586b60230036eec581747a03e2e7bfdce1cf5a4c5989daba",
"pubkey": "f14f3c71a4e63a12c842e4a50471263ada4b6cfde093fcb6588693a726b9b018",
"created_at": 1686151931,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"535e157902ae29a760f5db26801c9d226d1e5b487c7fbe85aa29d6a926b7b569",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ce0ee6b3a52b3487d9c9c4ea7bc01f03af276735808c1dfc3d657253ce7e6929",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"effb1edcfd59cdc0872acacc51f5deabd765c80ff5f764684faf368222539183"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-18\n📝 Original message:Den 18 mar 2015 23:38 skrev \"Dennis Sullivan\" \u003cdennis.jm.sullivan at gmail.com\n\u003e:\n\u003e\n\u003e Hello. This is my first time posting to this list. I wanted to ask your\nopinions on something relating to confirmation times.\n\u003e\n\u003e I recently read about a \"transaction locking\" proposal which claims to\nmake it possible to accept 0-conf transactions with guarantee they will get\nmined. This seems rather dubious to me, because if there was merit to the\nsystem, I would have already expected to see discussion on this list\nregarding it.\n\nSounds like it would be weak to sybil attacks (deterministically choosing\nmy own nodes sounds great!), and of course Finney attacks (single-block\nreversal) and defecting miners (what are you gonna do, punish miners with\nlimited network connectivity as well? You'll risk forking the network).\n\nZero-conf is only safe if nobody's actively trying to attack you. It has no\ninherent security in and of itself. For low values the risk is usually\ntolerated. For large values there's too much risk of making yourself a\ntarget.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150318/89142b7c/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "f165dc2fbadf63208eba601443a025cbb63ea1e9cbc43f246f52dcc9a459dbd5b7bcd2f33eb9b5b34cd45c31e3443eeb0d0b78076d15f8c0bbd397c20da3efd6"
}