You mean an isolated signing device without memory right? An isolated node would still know the transactions substantiating its coins, why would it sign them away to fees ?
Tamas Blummer On Jan 23, 2015, at 4:47 PM, slush <sl...@centrum.cz> wrote: > Correct, plus the most likely scenario in such attack is that the malware > even don't push such tx with excessive fees to the network, but send it > directly to attacker's pool/miner. > > M. > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Alan Reiner <etothe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, one major attack vector is someone isolating your node, > getting you to sign away your whole wallet to fee, and then selling it to a > mining pool to mine it before you can figure why your transactions aren't > making it to the network. In such an attack, the relay rules aren't > relevant, and if the attacker can DoS you for 24 hours, it doesn't take a ton > of mining power to make the attack extremely likely to succeed. > > > > > On 01/23/2015 10:31 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: >> Not a fix, but would reduce the financial risk, if nodes were not relaying >> excessive fee transactions. >> >> Tamas Blummer >> >> > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
