Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes: > On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> 1) The risk of an old full node wallet accepting a transaction that is >> invalid to the new rules. >> >> The receiver wallet chooses what address/script to accept coins on. >> They'll upgrade to the new softfork rules before creating an address >> that depends on the softfork's features. >> >> So, not a problem. > > > Mallory wants to defraud Bob with a 1 BTC payment for some beer. Bob > runs the old rules. Bob creates a p2pkh address for Mallory to > use. Mallory takes 1 BTC, and creates an invalid SegWit transaction > that Bob cannot properly validate and that pays into one of Mallory's > wallets. Mallory then immediately spends the unconfirmed transaction > into Bob's address. Bob sees what appears to be a valid transaction > chain which is not actually valid.
Pretty sure Bob's wallet will be looking for "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG" scriptSig. The SegWit-usable outputs will (have to) look different, won't they? Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
