📅 Original date posted:2023-01-10
🗒️ Summary of this message: David A. Harding suggests that any protocol software that wants to defeat the $17.00 pinning attack needs to implement some sort of conflict monitoring system.
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:02:35AM -1000, David A. Harding wrote:
> On 2023-01-09 22:47, Peter Todd wrote:
> > How do you propose that the participants learn about the double-spend?
> > Without
> > knowing that it happened, they can't respond as you suggested.
>
> I can think of various ways---many of them probably the same ideas that
> would occur to you.
Rather than playing games, how about you actually list those ways.
> More concise than listing them is to just assume
> they exist and realize that any protocol software which wants to defeat
> the $17.00 pinning attack needs to implement some sort of conflict
> monitoring system---but by using that monitoring system to defeat the
> $17.00 pinning attack, the software also defeats the $0.05 individual
> conflicting input attack without any need for full-RBF.
Remember, we'd like decentralized coinjoin implementations like Joinmarket to
work. How does a decentralized coinjoin implement "conflict monitoring"?
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230110/7315ce24/attachment-0001.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-08 01:18:28
in reply to nevent1q…xly4
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-08 01:18:28Event JSON
{
"id": "46d211c5af73d4457ca6a468e7462eba2d0779def9e01f96daa4f13d15e718cc",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179908,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"93af7b1be8797d2a1683551105f962f360fcab88fd5768c2fa8ac19d93416ad2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"13ed4de727388e01aab49c7648e98e453e2446ca062178685dc1be5714096152",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-01-10\n🗒️ Summary of this message: David A. Harding suggests that any protocol software that wants to defeat the $17.00 pinning attack needs to implement some sort of conflict monitoring system.\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:02:35AM -1000, David A. Harding wrote:\n\u003e On 2023-01-09 22:47, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e How do you propose that the participants learn about the double-spend?\n\u003e \u003e Without\n\u003e \u003e knowing that it happened, they can't respond as you suggested.\n\u003e \n\u003e I can think of various ways---many of them probably the same ideas that\n\u003e would occur to you.\n\nRather than playing games, how about you actually list those ways.\n\n\u003e More concise than listing them is to just assume\n\u003e they exist and realize that any protocol software which wants to defeat\n\u003e the $17.00 pinning attack needs to implement some sort of conflict\n\u003e monitoring system---but by using that monitoring system to defeat the\n\u003e $17.00 pinning attack, the software also defeats the $0.05 individual\n\u003e conflicting input attack without any need for full-RBF.\n\nRemember, we'd like decentralized coinjoin implementations like Joinmarket to\nwork. How does a decentralized coinjoin implement \"conflict monitoring\"?\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230110/7315ce24/attachment-0001.sig\u003e",
"sig": "baa41522fe9960b62423f5178a7e3a858e51d16a8bd138dbfd9d7d3d2105cdbd6cd38e2b50256e0da57e5fcff888257a6304423e1e5efdf55ab60636990089f0"
}