Quote from: CIYAM Pty. Ltd. on October 06, 2012, 12:40:23 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on October 06, 2012, 12:34:19 PM

Yes. The attacker is the only who has connections to the victim.

And how exactly does the attacker control that (without having first hacked the victim's computer)?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses:

Quote

It's trivial for an attacker to fill the network with clients controlled by him. This might be helpful in the execution of other attacks.
For example, an attacker might connect 100,000 IP addresses to the IRC bootstrap channel. You would then be very likely to connect only to attacker nodes. This state can be exploited in (at least) the following ways:
The attacker can refuse to relay blocks and transactions from everyone, disconnecting you from the network.
The attacker can relay only blocks that he creates, putting you on a separate network. You're then open to double-spending attacks.
If you rely on transactions with 0 confirmations, the attacker can just filter out certain transactions to execute a double-spending attack.
Low-latency encryption/anonymization of Bitcoin's transmissions (With Tor, JAP, etc.) can be defeated relatively easy with a timing attack if you're connected to several of the attacker's nodes and the attacker is watching your transmissions at your ISP.
Bitcoin makes these attacks more difficult by only making an outbound connection to one IP address per /16 (x.y.0.0). Incoming connections are unlimited and unregulated, but this is generally only a problem in the anonymity case, where you're probably already unable to accept incoming connections.
Looking for suspiciously low network hash-rates may help prevent the second one.

Cancer nodes attack is implemented right now as it's said in the thread I made a link to.