3 ms·

Indeed, there is an ordering, but that's decided exclusively by the creator of the transaction, so he could easily manipulate the future tainted addresses. The

Indeed, there is an ordering, but that's decided exclusively by the creator of the transaction, so he could easily manipulate the future tainted addresses. The FIFO (or LIFO for that matter) rule seems like an arbitrary chosen one which could easily be overcome: the thief can put the stolen funds in an address and only use those when the atomic swap protocol between chains is created, for example. Or exchange those funds on decentralized exchanges, or sell on localbitcoins. This is an example of a transaction with multiple inputs, multiple outputs: https://blockchain.info/tx/1952ae67f75707e8a357cb40cc4e2123c7e4d1310ce805c62469a778d2dc595d https://blockchain.info/tx/1952ae67f75707e8a357cb40cc4e2123c... The creator of such transactions can manipulate the order in both inputs and outputs.

gojomo 9y ago
Yes, the possessor can control where the ‘taint’ goes by their spending choices, just like someone with stolen property can choose who to give/sell it to. The point of this FIFO method isn’t exclusively — or even primarily — to outwit thieves. Rather, it’s just to have a tractable (and legally-based) rule for deciding which balances, arbitrarily later, can be deemed ‘the stolen amount’.