> minrelaytxfee setting proposed in the 0.11.0 release notes my guess, he is talking about this https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/minimum-relay-fee <https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/minimum-relay-fee> - slam dunk technique for doublespend
> Related: is there somewhere a chart that plots `estimatefee` over > time? Would be interesting to see how the fee market evolved over > these past weeks. I find this useful https://bitcoinfees.github.io/ <https://bitcoinfees.github.io/> > On Jul 16, 2015, at 7:30 AM, Arne Brutschy via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > What are these pre- and post-Hearn-relay drop rules you are speaking > about? Can anybody shed some light on this? (I am aware of the > minrelaytxfee setting proposed in the 0.11.0 release notes, I just > don't see what this has to do with Mike Hearn, BitcoinXT, and whether > there's a code change related to this that I missed). > > Related: is there somewhere a chart that plots `estimatefee` over > time? Would be interesting to see how the fee market evolved over > these past weeks. > > Regards > Arne > > On 15/07/15 05:29, simongreen--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> With my black hat on I recently performed numerous profitable >> double-spend attacks against zeroconf accepting fools. With my >> white hat on, I'm warning everyone. The strategy is simple: >> >> tx1: To merchant, but dust/low-fee/reused-address/large-size/etc. >> anything that miners don't always accept. >> >> tx2: After merchant gives up valuable thing in return, normal tx >> without triggering spam protections. (loltasticly a Mike Hearn >> Bitcoin XT node was used to relay the double-spends) >> >> Example success story: tx1 paying Shapeshift.io with 6uBTC output >> is not dust under post-Hearn-relay-drop rules, but is dust under >> pre-Hearn-relay-drop rules, followed by tx2 w/o the output and not >> paying Shapeshift.io. F2Pool/Eligius/BTCChina/AntPool etc. are all >> miners who have reverted Hearn's 10x relay fee drop as recommended >> by v0.11.0 release notes and accept these double-spends. >> Shapeshift.io lost ~3 BTC this week in multiple txs. (they're no >> longer accepting zeroconf) >> >> Example success story #2: tx1 with post-Hearn-relay drop fee, >> followed by tx2 with higher fee. Such stupidly low fee txs just >> don't get mined, so wait for a miner to mine tx2. Bought a silly >> amount of reddit gold off Coinbase this way among other things. I'm >> surprised that reddit didn't cancel the "fools-gold" after tx >> reversal. (did Coinbase guarantee those txs?) Also found multiple >> Bitcoin ATMs vulnerable to this attack. (but simulated attack with >> tx2s still paying ATM because didn't want to go to trouble of good >> phys opsec) >> >> Shoutouts to BitPay who did things right and notified merchant >> properly when tx was reversed. >> >> In summary, every target depending on zeroconf vulnerable and lost >> significant sums of money to totally trivial attacks with high >> probability. No need for RBF to do this, just normal variations in >> miner policy. Shapeshift claims to use Super Sophisticated Network >> Sybil Attacking Monitoring from Blockcypher, but relay nodes != >> miner policy. >> >> Consider yourself warned! My hat is whiter than most, and my skills >> not particularly good. >> >> What to do? Users: Listen to the experts and stop relying on >> zeroconf. Black hats: Profit! >> >> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing >> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -- > Arne Brutschy <abruts...@xylon.de> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
