📅 Original date posted:2016-08-27
📝 Original message:Why not just have a single 1-of-m multisig transaction, with one key on
each server? Based on which key is used you would know which server is
compromised, and (in my opinion) it wouldn't look nearly as suspicious.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:26 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > If however
> > he is planning to use it as a foothold to further compromise your
> > company, send spam or similar, he will likely try to avoid these
> > tripwires. [...]
>
> Depends on the value of their activity compared to the value of the coins.
> Spamming doesn't pay much.
>
> Covert tripwires would obviously be better, but if shared tripwires
> allow you to have 100x the funds available it could be a good
> trade-off.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160828/5d9952ea/attachment.html>;
James MacWhyte [ARCHIVE] /
npub12t…pye9h
2023-06-07 17:53:10
in reply to nevent1q…y3l5
Author Public Key
npub12tjaqer27049ejmvf0f3yd7kq6p93gg6ecavgrczge4rlzf59y5q2pye9hPublished at
2023-06-07 17:53:10Event JSON
{
"id": "0a9d01969331232aafb44f39d5e1f76f1c7ba8603c0bacc8b2a21c161cf1c2d0",
"pubkey": "52e5d0646af3ea5ccb6c4bd31237d6068258a11ace3ac40f02466a3f89342928",
"created_at": 1686160390,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a20afac7ea0a5c51cb16d367c8c956d81c0793daf776d5b4fced12052517c6d2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"56472cbf3db0ca97abffd669f9f85aed91f723aaa820d6ff65abde6368d1bd35",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-27\n📝 Original message:Why not just have a single 1-of-m multisig transaction, with one key on\neach server? Based on which key is used you would know which server is\ncompromised, and (in my opinion) it wouldn't look nearly as suspicious.\n\nOn Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:26 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e If however\n\u003e \u003e he is planning to use it as a foothold to further compromise your\n\u003e \u003e company, send spam or similar, he will likely try to avoid these\n\u003e \u003e tripwires. [...]\n\u003e\n\u003e Depends on the value of their activity compared to the value of the coins.\n\u003e Spamming doesn't pay much.\n\u003e\n\u003e Covert tripwires would obviously be better, but if shared tripwires\n\u003e allow you to have 100x the funds available it could be a good\n\u003e trade-off.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160828/5d9952ea/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "5daa761db5b3326b906e74286413030bb9f0f6eb07d9abe0f6d039ae3ef353e7fe0376e69f7b58c660242d7250aff63fa8efac229f0cfb780e4d945a45503f18"
}