Author: Gregory Maxwell 2014-04-23 18:57:01
Published on: 2014-04-23T18:57:01+00:00
The email conversation between Bitcoin developers discusses the recent launch of Finney attacks as a service by BitUndo. Finney attacks involve a miner secretly working on a block containing a double spend. However, there seems to be some confusion over what exactly BitUndo does, with one developer suggesting that they prioritize transactions in their mempool from people who pay them. This may still be risky for someone taking irreversible action in response to an unconfirmed payment, but it's less sinister than initially thought. The conversation also highlights the risks associated with accepting zero-conf payments, which have the potential to be reversed. This risk exists in all electronic payment systems, and businesses can still operate despite this. To make zero-conf more secure against reversal, technological approaches can be used, such as performing multi-sig with an anti-double-spending system or using an external federated payment network. However, these require substantial development work. The discussion then shifts to miners 'voting' to reallocate coins, which is seen as a greater violation of the Bitcoin social contract than twiddling with the unspecified unconfirmed transaction ordering. A better defense is having the control of hash power well distributed so that there isn't any central point that exerts enough influence to change risk statistics much. Giving miners the ability to steal each other's payments is a force away from decentralization.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T18:43:21.561274+00:00