> CPFP can be used by an attacker to get your original txn into the 148 chain.
*err, my bad that's unlikely to happen, if I remember correctly CPFP can only be done by the person you're sending the coins to. Coin-mixing seems the better option of the two, but shouldn't the BIP148 folks wait until it's clear that will be supported by exchanges? -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. > On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Tao Effect <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> CoinJoin works as a method of both improving fungibility and mixing with >> coinbase transactions. > > My understanding is that the two situations are quite different. > > Unlike mixing to coin-split, CoinJoin doesn't create a high demand > exclusively for coinbase transactions. > > However, of the proposed methods, coin-mixing seems the better option, > because it might be reasonably easy (I don't know) for exchanges to obtain > 148 coinbase coins, and mix their coins with them, extending the > coin-splitting capability beyond just miner coins and then using that to > split incoming coins. > > That seems like the most reasonable approach I've heard so far. Whether > exchanges would be willing to do that is a separate question. > >> When it's confirmed on one chain, but not on the other, you >> can then "double-spend" on the lower hashrate chain with a higher fee, >> to end up with different coins on both chains. > > This method is time consuming and not guaranteed to work. CPFP can be used by > an attacker to get your original txn into the 148 chain. > >> (also, no double-n in untenable) > > Why thank you aj, you're so good at spelling. :-) > > Cheers, > Greg >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
