Quote from: NewLiberty on October 03, 2014, 01:12:54 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 03, 2014, 01:09:08 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on October 03, 2014, 01:04:50 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 03, 2014, 12:55:19 AM

30 blocks is probably not enough for a Gordian knot. What do you do when you people claim very important transactions that they don't want rewound? How do you identify who is who they claim to be as a sender in order to pick and choose which transactions to retain and which to unwind?

Yes, I't could be worse if it were longer.
None get unwound, only put onto the good chain, so everything goes through but some with a longer delay than expected.
The only user experience issue is the unexpected slowness until it is resolved. No one has to claim to be anyone. Wink

How do you unentangle rings which bind to double-spent (conflicting) transactions in the fork? The entire point of forking is to double-spend or...

How do you identify the claimed lost wallets from the claimed not lost ones? (assuming BCX does have the exploit he alleged)

No rings unentangling needed so far. No lost wallets result either (unless you want to count the coinbase transactions from the dead chain).
There weren't any double spends in this effort so that would be a new "forced evolution" for the Devs.

So you agree ring signature entanglement from the coinbase transactions of the attackers fork could in theory occur??

How to unwind those?