Quote from: franky1 on November 08, 2019, 12:57:06 PM

well..
most people dont carry around a desktop computer when wanting to use remote/someone elses internet. so usually people are checking via a smart phone by default when they go visit someones house. so chances that the victim is using a lite wallet being very very high without attacker even having to try

Agreed.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on November 08, 2019, 01:07:47 PM

Quote from: johnwhitestar on November 08, 2019, 09:25:29 AM

. . . So should the attacker be certain his victim only uses a lite wallet he can invite his victim to his home to receive the payment? . . .

You are changing the rules here. You said that you were thinking about Bitcoin-Qt BECAUSE it is usually perceived as a better solution than any light wallet. Now you are saying that the victim is going to use a worse solution?

This post is a kind of work in progress, as much info I get that make me change my mind as much the "rules" are changed. I'm not after imposing my opinion, just to see whether there is an issue or not. So I "changed my rules" because of the previous post. But thank you for many valid points explained.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on November 08, 2019, 01:07:47 PM

Quote from: johnwhitestar on November 08, 2019, 11:29:12 AM

And another thought. What if the attacker performs the same attack without inviting his victim to a physical place, just by knowing the victims IP and isolating from him the right net and offering only connections to the fake nodes?

Place has nothing to do with the attack you are trying to describe. The point of your described attack is simply that the victim is isolated from other Bitcoin nodes and is forced to communicate with nodes that the attack controls. There may be MANY different ways to accomplish this, but in the end it isn't likely to be a profitable attack unless you have a VERY VERY gullible victim.

That's right. It's nothing to do with the place, what I described in OP is only a specific case of a more general kind of attack. But putting the attack into contest of receiving a visitor gives the attacker the possibility to receive something "after he paid" and then disappear or just wash his hands as the victim has actually seen his BTC on his wallet, while in Internet it's more difficult.

Seems like performing this kind of attack against a lite wallet is much easier, right?