📅 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
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:25:57
in reply to nevent1q…4lwj
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:25:57Event JSON
{
"id": "889225b965c765170b27fb07a8c7c792e7713969673f8098c3a32f0a39f04d92",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686151557,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4f9ac54bd6567a8c3e1bbdc8600514d9552b8a33dc3e70bf70216815782b2480",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"43b125f70e46911db995acf65f3f36d9abe5f71c006fb4733345c989157d3743",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-09-25\n📝 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?\n\n\nOn Thursday, 25 September 2014, at 7:02 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote:\n\u003e There was some discussion of having nodes relay double-spends in order\n\u003e to alert the network about double spend attempts.\n\u003e \n\u003e A lot more users will be using SPV wallets in the future, and one of\n\u003e the techniques SPV clients use to judge how likely a transaction is to\n\u003e be confirmed is if it propagates across the network. I wonder if and\n\u003e when double-spend relaying is introduced, if nodes should also send\n\u003e BIP61 reject messages or something along those lines to indicate which\n\u003e transactions those nodes believe to be invalid, but are relaying\n\u003e anyway.\n\u003e \n\u003e This would be subject to sybil attacks, as is monitoring propagation,\n\u003e however it does still increase the cost of performing a 0 confirmation\n\u003e double spend attack on an SPV client above just relaying double-spends\n\u003e without indicating if a node believes the transaction to be valid.\n\u003e \n\u003e Aaron Voisine\n\u003e breadwallet.com",
"sig": "45604e3d0f97aeb3618aea8e1bd33dfd9452f45bd7734e09f810857d33322da58785ed7461e9e9d81c6814ebd681b87aa1cc38687c6900f259a4d9347d5d2aa1"
}