Author: Gregory Maxwell 2013-03-12 18:09:06
Published on: 2013-03-12T18:09:06+00:00
In an email conversation, Alan Reiner asked about the risks involved in a rejected block while transactions remained unaffected. A flood of duplicate transactions announcing both spends to multiple nodes could cause conflicts in both chains, which would eventually result in one chain being popped and transactions being undone for anyone on that side. This attack would not require any particular resources and only enough technical sophistication to run something like pynode to give raw txn to nodes at random. However, interest in attacking and lack of good targets who hadn't shut down their deposits were major barriers. In response to a query by someone regarding double-spend attempts, it was confirmed that there were circulating double-spends during the fork as visible on blockchain.info. It is unknown whether any conflicts made it into the losing chain. Checking consumed inputs in the losing fork can determine if any have been consumed by different transactions now. Even though no one knows if there weren't any attempts, it would be good to confirm that no one was ripped off.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T16:38:12.483578+00:00