📅 Original date posted:2013-03-12
📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to misrepresent what happened, but how much of that was really
> a risk? The block was rejected, but the transactions were not.
Some but not much. If someone flooded a bunch of duplicate
concurrently announcing both spends to as many nodes as they could
reach they would almost certainly gotten some conflicts into both
chains. Then both chains would have gotten >6 confirms. Then one chain
would pop and anyone on the popped side would see >6 confirm
transactions undo.
This attack would not require any particular resources, and only
enough technical sophistication to run something like pynode to give
raw txn to nodes at random.
The biggest barriers against it were people being uninterested in
attacking (as usual for all things) and there not being many (any?)
good targets who hadn't shut down their deposits. They would have to
have accepted deposits with <12 confirms and let you withdraw. During
the event an attacker could have gotten of their deposit-able funds.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter Vessenes <peter at coinlab.com> wrote:
> Can some enterprising soul determine if there were any double-spend attempts?
> I'm assuming no, and if that's the case, we should talk about that publicly.
There were circulating double-spends during the fork (as were visible
on blockchain.info). I don't know if any conflicts made it into the
losing chain, however. It's not too hard to check to see what inputs
were consumed in the losing fork and see if any have been consumed by
different transactions now.
I agree it would be good to confirm no one was ripped off, even though
we can't say there weren't any attempts.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 11:37:46
in reply to nevent1q…g44a
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 11:37:46Event JSON
{
"id": "7ee5036da5be8ddcbe475d7463d3f9d4cd1e8f09b01fe19a23281cd1249daac1",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686137866,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f33f518d3b5ede4c8e85312ebea36f59a0dce8fd1c908dfe9352a4a28b6ea01d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5c0796d255ac5df67bec01fe592d8c075febd4e918a6ace0070c1cfcc2d93885",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c8914ab5f1efb93771e9c5b7fe20dcff2c343f46f4846ae6689a0c9478b04e01"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-03-12\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alan Reiner \u003cetotheipi at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I don't want to misrepresent what happened, but how much of that was really\n\u003e a risk? The block was rejected, but the transactions were not.\n\nSome but not much. If someone flooded a bunch of duplicate\nconcurrently announcing both spends to as many nodes as they could\nreach they would almost certainly gotten some conflicts into both\nchains. Then both chains would have gotten \u003e6 confirms. Then one chain\nwould pop and anyone on the popped side would see \u003e6 confirm\ntransactions undo.\n\nThis attack would not require any particular resources, and only\nenough technical sophistication to run something like pynode to give\nraw txn to nodes at random.\n\nThe biggest barriers against it were people being uninterested in\nattacking (as usual for all things) and there not being many (any?)\ngood targets who hadn't shut down their deposits. They would have to\nhave accepted deposits with \u003c12 confirms and let you withdraw. During\nthe event an attacker could have gotten of their deposit-able funds.\n\nOn Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter Vessenes \u003cpeter at coinlab.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Can some enterprising soul determine if there were any double-spend attempts?\n\u003e I'm assuming no, and if that's the case, we should talk about that publicly.\n\nThere were circulating double-spends during the fork (as were visible\non blockchain.info). I don't know if any conflicts made it into the\nlosing chain, however. It's not too hard to check to see what inputs\nwere consumed in the losing fork and see if any have been consumed by\ndifferent transactions now.\n\nI agree it would be good to confirm no one was ripped off, even though\nwe can't say there weren't any attempts.",
"sig": "295ef07fafcf9fe9cdf8a5477f6dc2b36e6e7d46f47c0fe7d545fab55ca1d8a1f26b1f38c3ee2ade56ddac0da764ed0b14a0c047edf1f7e6a04c4e6b6f1cfa3a"
}