{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Having said that... honestly, zeroconf is pretty broken already. Only\n\u003e with pretty heroic measures like connecting to a significant fraction of\n\u003e the Bitcoin network at once, as well as connecting to getblocktemplate\n\u003e supporting miners to figure out what transactions are being mined, are\n\u003e services having any hope of avoiding getting ripped off. For the average\n\u003e user their wallets do a terrible job of showing whether or not an\n\u003e\n\nThis is no excuse for further degrading the overall network security.\n\nThere are many issues to address in the bitcoin ecosystem.  It negatively\nimpacts users to roll out \"scorched earth\" replace-by-fee given today's\necosystem.\n\nYes, zero conf security is poor.  An outright attack on zero conf degrades\nuser security even more.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nBitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/5bb9893d/attachment.html\u003e"}