Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š
Original date posted:2016-08-28 š Original message:On 24 August 2016 22:54:47 ...
š
Original date posted:2016-08-28
š Original message:On 24 August 2016 22:54:47 GMT-04:00, James MacWhyte <macwhyte at gmail.com> wrote:
>I've always assumed honeypots were meant to look like regular, yet
>poorly-secured, assets.
Not at all. Most servers have zero reason to have any Bitcoin's accessible via them, so the presence of BTC privkeys is a gigantic red flag that they are part of a honeypot.
> If the intruder could identify this as a
>honeypot
>by the strange setup (presigned, non-standard transactions lying
>around)
>and was aware that the creator intended to doublespend as soon as the
>transaction was discovered, wouldn't they instead prefer to not touch
>anything and wait for a non-bait target to appear?
Re-read my last section on the "scorched earth" disincentive to doublespend the intruder.
Published at
2023-06-07 17:53:10Event JSON
{
"id": "8f57f32699f8c9e52fc076146cb64093f349ce057b92a86f46c0dbdd3a8e8af2",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160390,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a20afac7ea0a5c51cb16d367c8c956d81c0793daf776d5b4fced12052517c6d2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5f06fde0da338438a1a59f390537293c3c910fcdefbe13394a1b6e07bba3d249",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-08-28\nš Original message:On 24 August 2016 22:54:47 GMT-04:00, James MacWhyte \u003cmacwhyte at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003eI've always assumed honeypots were meant to look like regular, yet\n\u003epoorly-secured, assets.\n\nNot at all. Most servers have zero reason to have any Bitcoin's accessible via them, so the presence of BTC privkeys is a gigantic red flag that they are part of a honeypot.\n\n\u003e If the intruder could identify this as a\n\u003ehoneypot\n\u003eby the strange setup (presigned, non-standard transactions lying\n\u003earound)\n\u003eand was aware that the creator intended to doublespend as soon as the\n\u003etransaction was discovered, wouldn't they instead prefer to not touch\n\u003eanything and wait for a non-bait target to appear?\n\nRe-read my last section on the \"scorched earth\" disincentive to doublespend the intruder.",
"sig": "91ba3a4a7fde67923a8ab9efbd94e090dacbebc000d8d98c94324321205ede35645657bab4fa56098bd64c7e4cdf25054b9f468afa9d2da51dfb7fe0d80cf0a6"
}