CSW - Slack Channel

Consequently, the initial assumption that the attack has no cost is flawed. Next, it is a simple attack to detect. The merchant, Bob can simply wait and validate a couple seconds later. I'm doing this, Bob can recheck any issue transaction and cancel it if a double spend is detected. For instance, Alice makes a purchase and releases the block after Bob has handed the coffee across the counter. As he is doing this, Bob detects a new block from Alice. At this point, Bob stops Alice from taking the coffee and also reports her for an attempted theft. If we are talking about remote issue of goods, Bob simply needs to delay issue. Each second that Bob delays results in a higher cost for Alice. As she is waiting, Charlie can validate a new block. As soon as this happens, Alice will fail to propagate in the same way that a selfish mining attack comes 2nd to all blocks from Charlie.

The potential cost would be the complete loss of the miner's business. Such a cost would exceed the cost of the hardware and would be unrecoverable at any level.

All the flaws associated with this understanding of bitcoin are associated with the failure to scale. Scaled, where miners move towards data centres and large operations, the cost of withholding a block become significant.

The error in such an attack is an assumption derived from an anarchist perspective of bitcoin where bitcoin operates without law and without cost. Neither of these assumptions are correct. Bitcoin is a system within law and more importantly, withholding blocks costs a miner in lost revenue. Even if this is a small probabilistic amount, the total overall mining revenue lost in a mere matter of seconds become significant enough to disallow a double spend. Importantly, the block acts as an evidence trail. The merchant now has digitally signed evidence proving that Alice attempted to defraud Bob. This is admissible within courts. Such an attack would not be feasible other than for small sales. This is purely a 0-conf proposed attack and fails against confirmed blocks. As such, any time Bob notices Alice is sent to block extends the time. So if Alice is attempting to defraud Bob and it takes Bob more than a few seconds to permanently issue and ship goods, then Alice will fail.
For instance, if Alice has purchased access to a movie, even if she gains one minute of free viewing, Bob will now be able to stop her seeing any further. If Bob has any time to withhold the goods, for instance he needs to ship an item in this might be picked up for 30 minutes, he will notice and be able to report on Alice's attack.

All of the attacks proposed assume a world without government or law and further ignore revenue and profit as a consideration. The problem with this is that any attack starts with the presumption that law does not exist and extends this into a world that acts without profit motivated merchants.

CSW
Jun 3, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1559585872073900?thread_ts=1559579400.047900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2049

Telegram

CSW - Slack Channel

Consequently, the initial assumption that the attack has no cost is flawed. Next, it is a simple attack to detect. The merchant, Bob can simply wait and validate a couple seconds later. I'm doing this, Bob can recheck any issue transaction and cancel it if…

www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2049

333 views@RamonQuesada 🌷, edited  Apr 21, 2021 at 23:17

Consequently, the initial assumption that the attack has no cost is flawed. Next, it is a simple attack to detect. The merchant, Bob can simply wait and validate a couple seconds later. I'm doing this, Bob can recheck any issue transaction and cancel it if a double spend is detected. For instance, Alice makes a purchase and releases the block after Bob has handed the coffee across the counter. As he is doing this, Bob detects a new block from Alice. At this point, Bob stops Alice from taking the coffee and also reports her for an attempted theft. If we are talking about remote issue of goods, Bob simply needs to delay issue. Each second that Bob delays results in a higher cost for Alice. As she is waiting, Charlie can validate a new block. As soon as this happens, Alice will fail to propagate in the same way that a selfish mining attack comes 2nd to all blocks from Charlie.

The potential cost would be the complete loss of the miner's business. Such a cost would exceed the cost of the hardware and would be unrecoverable at any level.

All the flaws associated with this understanding of bitcoin are associated with the failure to scale. Scaled, where miners move towards data centres and large operations, the cost of withholding a block become significant.

The error in such an attack is an assumption derived from an anarchist perspective of bitcoin where bitcoin operates without law and without cost. Neither of these assumptions are correct. Bitcoin is a system within law and more importantly, withholding blocks costs a miner in lost revenue. Even if this is a small probabilistic amount, the total overall mining revenue lost in a mere matter of seconds become significant enough to disallow a double spend. Importantly, the block acts as an evidence trail. The merchant now has digitally signed evidence proving that Alice attempted to defraud Bob. This is admissible within courts. Such an attack would not be feasible other than for small sales. This is purely a 0-conf proposed attack and fails against confirmed blocks. As such, any time Bob notices Alice is sent to block extends the time. So if Alice is attempting to defraud Bob and it takes Bob more than a few seconds to permanently issue and ship goods, then Alice will fail.
For instance, if Alice has purchased access to a movie, even if she gains one minute of free viewing, Bob will now be able to stop her seeing any further. If Bob has any time to withhold the goods, for instance he needs to ship an item in this might be picked up for 30 minutes, he will notice and be able to report on Alice's attack.

All of the attacks proposed assume a world without government or law and further ignore revenue and profit as a consideration. The problem with this is that any attack starts with the presumption that law does not exist and extends this into a world that acts without profit motivated merchants.

CSW
Jun 3, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1559585872073900?thread_ts=1559579400.047900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2049

BY CSW - Slack Channel