š
Original date posted:2013-05-21
š Original message:On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:39:30PM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote:
> That's good - what I had taken away from the replace-by-fee discussions was
> that it was finally decided.
>
> My opinion is that we should be doing what we can to make 0-confs as
> reliable as possible - which will always be 'not very', but a solid system
> to notify on attempted double-spends is a good start.
>
> I'd like to know how Peter Todd's experiment with the 2BTC reward has gone.
piuk wrote a double-spender that I think meets the criteria for the
reward: https://blockchain.info/create-double-spend
I'll get a chance to test it properly when I'm back from vacation, but
looks like he's getting the 2BTC. If it does work as intended I'm also
planning on doing a demo/video at the next Toronto Bitcoin Meetup to
demonstrate the attack in a real-life exchange.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000f31f5cd20f915e3edb8e3fceea49580235b984fea63f1f882c
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130521/8219e59c/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:02:18
in reply to nevent1qā¦2gnz
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:02:18Event JSON
{
"id": "0757357bbb72d3f79b9a29b3f9bdef93cf39af34397a8f2e61b62e34c47d814a",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686150138,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e2b0d4c9e9ef91bcdbcf2583000e9ebb8fa15ef27e8a01c38f0772dbda8190a9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9763f43909d9c32149b9b0520e06b71357e2d0898e29f987b7b1ee8ff54db558",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"faa75b439ac4b98d97c948a10a1963065c77b9001c57b48e903636afdf6636a6"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2013-05-21\nš Original message:On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:39:30PM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote:\n\u003e That's good - what I had taken away from the replace-by-fee discussions was\n\u003e that it was finally decided.\n\u003e \n\u003e My opinion is that we should be doing what we can to make 0-confs as\n\u003e reliable as possible - which will always be 'not very', but a solid system\n\u003e to notify on attempted double-spends is a good start.\n\u003e \n\u003e I'd like to know how Peter Todd's experiment with the 2BTC reward has gone.\n\npiuk wrote a double-spender that I think meets the criteria for the\nreward: https://blockchain.info/create-double-spend\n\nI'll get a chance to test it properly when I'm back from vacation, but\nlooks like he's getting the 2BTC. If it does work as intended I'm also\nplanning on doing a demo/video at the next Toronto Bitcoin Meetup to\ndemonstrate the attack in a real-life exchange.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000f31f5cd20f915e3edb8e3fceea49580235b984fea63f1f882c\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130521/8219e59c/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "6dab7560662493f473667e3b7e73e03a9ad31a7087f68b29afc2cb91e6dfa0e839f1899cab0d4f5350b059151202e3eeb977220dbf1b9e4bd6a51b80f9f61d5b"
}