Message-ID: <54344751.708@certimix.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:04:33 -0300
From: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <543438E4.8080501@certimix.com> <54343948.1030400@certimix.com>
	<CAAS2fgRdB_4XS9Q+MFLsNtXvSiYS9Ymh9SAPzcJ5aae+89vxFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRdB_4XS9Q+MFLsNtXvSiYS9Ymh9SAPzcJ5aae+89vxFA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack
 (FRONT)
Precedence: list


On 07/10/2014 04:16 p.m., Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Then I spend the output of the fraudulent spend nlocked
> one block higher, and spend the output of that one again, nlocked one
> block higher, and so on... each step paying fees.
Yes, you're right. I didn't consider that case. But the problem is that
this is not automatic. Currently there is a clear division between
miners how will not take the kickback (irrrational) and miners who will
(rational).
If somebody modifies the bitcoind to make this choice automatic, then
DECOR+ is the only solution I know about to avoid people doing anonymous
double-spends (with chained kickbacks, as you mention).
The  "locktime on normal transactions" you proposed does not solve the
problem, just diminishes it in a constant value (which currently is very
low)