📅 Original date posted:2014-10-07
📝 Original message:On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner at certimix.com> wrote:
> Using the my previous terminology, automatic fee-sharing ("ORBS") is a
> solution to the freeze problem ("FRONT") but opens the windows to
> "CHAKIDO" double-spending. and CHAKIDO double-spending is a much worse
> problem than FRONT.
I'm not following this. Perhaps I'm getting lost in terminology here.
It's already to provide double spending bounties to greedy-rational
miners, via a simple approach that has been known since at least early
in 2011. I pay someone then create a later fraudulent doublespend
which is nlocked at the height the original payment occurred, paying
large fees. Then I spend the output of the fraudulent spend nlocked
one block higher, and spend the output of that one again, nlocked one
block higher, and so on... each step paying fees.
A hypothetical purely greedy miner which considers all sequences of
acceptable forks and transactions would see that they have higher
expected returns assisting the theft (assuming the honest party
doesn't fight back by also adopting a similar strategy), at least if
the population of greedy miners is large relative to altruistic ones.
I don't see how miners being able to roll forward fees makes anything
worse, since the transactions themselves can also roll forward fees.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 15:26:19
in reply to nevent1q…dle2
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:26:19Event JSON
{
"id": "78f0758377fb2fa144e680d563d2f4aa1ad1e02391c87ae9a6865aa78949f622",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686151579,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"590f9f3d77c6f5062e55d15ba45a9b74b0defc52c9a34a6bbe0fbacdb4f439c6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e29d5215578aa11028fa0b59ff4536641a094b4257adaa0a0201918c9f28e17b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"60f7a1f85420f38fa26db24af48330bd1800ed3bef3168454263dcfcef62a8ce"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-10-07\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Sergio Lerner \u003csergiolerner at certimix.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Using the my previous terminology, automatic fee-sharing (\"ORBS\") is a\n\u003e solution to the freeze problem (\"FRONT\") but opens the windows to\n\u003e \"CHAKIDO\" double-spending. and CHAKIDO double-spending is a much worse\n\u003e problem than FRONT.\n\nI'm not following this. Perhaps I'm getting lost in terminology here.\n\nIt's already to provide double spending bounties to greedy-rational\nminers, via a simple approach that has been known since at least early\nin 2011. I pay someone then create a later fraudulent doublespend\nwhich is nlocked at the height the original payment occurred, paying\nlarge fees. Then I spend the output of the fraudulent spend nlocked\none block higher, and spend the output of that one again, nlocked one\nblock higher, and so on... each step paying fees.\n\nA hypothetical purely greedy miner which considers all sequences of\nacceptable forks and transactions would see that they have higher\nexpected returns assisting the theft (assuming the honest party\ndoesn't fight back by also adopting a similar strategy), at least if\nthe population of greedy miners is large relative to altruistic ones.\n\nI don't see how miners being able to roll forward fees makes anything\nworse, since the transactions themselves can also roll forward fees.",
"sig": "1394e1b7ea2f93a9c8d3f5dc599859248ece63d54d1d00e31064a904edb2fb7aa38588d78651cb87bed8d945f60c10a31a6d566333c9cbffc6df19d9578f603b"
}