📅 Original date posted:2016-08-10
📝 Original message:This troll is harmless. A duplicate spend proof should also be signed
by the same user (Alice, in your example) to be considered a double
spend.
2016-08-09 3:18 GMT+03:00 James MacWhyte <macwhyte at gmail.com>:
> One more thought about why verification by miners may be needed.
>
> Let's say Alice sends Bob a transaction, generating output C.
>
> A troll, named Timothy, broadcasts a transaction with a random hash,
> referencing C's output as its spend proof. The miners can't tell if it's
> valid or not, and so they include the transaction in a block. Now Bob's
> money is useless, because everyone can see the spend proof referenced and
> thinks it has already been spent, even though the transaction that claims it
> isn't valid.
>
> Did I miss something that protects against this?
>
Tony Churyumoff [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nk…pugay
2023-06-07 17:52:42
in reply to nevent1q…ue2y
Author Public Key
npub1nk74067d6t4s9rxlad2ldmpr5wfe3uaquafs8hgklwlmh35y97gqrpugayPublished at
2023-06-07 17:52:42Event JSON
{
"id": "cd85eddf8ef4fdf045e436e0b91ba10b05acd6021ed56c116484ed1ebb8cbde0",
"pubkey": "9dbd57ebcdd2eb028cdfeb55f6ec23a39398f3a0e75303dd16fbbfbbc6842f90",
"created_at": 1686160362,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"05bc61b7fb55e90aebe418bf08f46e091b7d871fe35b34f9286d7e01dc626f31",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"51fd2c8fe89e777e155bc4fd5457951ce0c7cc43d7e37c5e3eb62fdce46a1210",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9dbd57ebcdd2eb028cdfeb55f6ec23a39398f3a0e75303dd16fbbfbbc6842f90"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-10\n📝 Original message:This troll is harmless. A duplicate spend proof should also be signed\nby the same user (Alice, in your example) to be considered a double\nspend.\n\n2016-08-09 3:18 GMT+03:00 James MacWhyte \u003cmacwhyte at gmail.com\u003e:\n\u003e One more thought about why verification by miners may be needed.\n\u003e\n\u003e Let's say Alice sends Bob a transaction, generating output C.\n\u003e\n\u003e A troll, named Timothy, broadcasts a transaction with a random hash,\n\u003e referencing C's output as its spend proof. The miners can't tell if it's\n\u003e valid or not, and so they include the transaction in a block. Now Bob's\n\u003e money is useless, because everyone can see the spend proof referenced and\n\u003e thinks it has already been spent, even though the transaction that claims it\n\u003e isn't valid.\n\u003e\n\u003e Did I miss something that protects against this?\n\u003e",
"sig": "2ebcc43537877681344237932d294b428ca86d38b1976fece48d2dcc1e92142f1d85bbc5dca4376a14f4bfa6e969651f613034f1de86bbd59f2c3bd6b0bbd61d"
}