Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-04-05 📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-04-05
📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:13:23PM +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Totally see the logic of this, and it makes sense. But I dont think the
> only risk is in terms of double spend, but rather
>
> 1) vandalize the block chain which may be difficult to unwind?

Vandalize the chain how? By delibrately triggering bugs? (like the old
OP_CHECKSIG abuse problem) Regardless of whether or not the
vulnerability requires multiple blocks in a row, the underlying problem
should be fixed.

By putting illegal data into it? Fundementally we have no way to prevent
people from doing that other than by making it expensive. An attacker
having a lot of hashing power just means they can do so faster and a bit
cheaper.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- 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/20130405/4eb210fe/attachment.sig>;