3 ms·
> replace the transaction that granted you the coins with a different transaction that sends the coins somewhere else If the party that sent you the coins cont
by dllthomas 10y ago
> replace the transaction that granted you the coins with a different transaction that sends the coins somewhere else
If the party that sent you the coins controls (directly or indirectly) >50% of the hash rate, they can reclaim the coins they sent you by omitting the transaction in a fork.
No amount of hash rate lets you send coins to arbitrary places - you need the sender's key to sign a transaction.
- philsnow 10y agoreplace the idea of "stealing your coins" with "depriving you of your coins" and it makes more sense. the attacker wouldn't be able to deposit the coins in any desired wallet, but would be able to create a fork of the chain that omits the transaction that put the coins in your wallet.
- dllthomas 10y agoThat's what had been stated upthread a ways. The comment I replied to specifically spoke of replacing the transaction with another.
- modeless 10y agoThey don't need any keys to omit transactions and therefore deprive you of your coins, or hold them for ransom. It's true that they can't gain control of the coins without the keys, but that doesn't change the fact that you lose the coins. And they can potentially get keys from people by promising to pay them in stolen Bitcoin.
- dllthomas 10y agoI don't see how any of that has any bearing on my objection, whatsoever. My point wasn't to say "WAT NO BITCOIN IS INVULNERABLE". My point was to correct the inaccuracy in the bit of your post that I quoted, lest it confuse others and for your benefit as well if it reflected actual misunderstanding.