Author: Peter Todd 2022-02-19 20:35:20
Published on: 2022-02-19T20:35:20+00:00
In a discussion about the term "necromancing" in relation to out-of-date versions of transactions being mined, darosior argued that it is not an attack because once a transaction has been signed and broadcasted, there can be no invalidation through replacement. However, Peter Todd countered this argument by stating that unwanted necromancy could still be considered an attack as it could result in expensive and inconvenient consequences for miners. He compared it to packet floods in which any packet can be sent over the internet, but standards are put in place to prevent flooding from becoming an easy and cheap attack. Thus, Bitcoin standards should also aim to prevent unwanted necromancy from becoming a cheap and easy attack.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T03:50:53.568652+00:00