Search content
Sort by
Showing 5 of 5 results by quannabe
Alice can't collect TX_3's output without making X public (as TX_3 requires X to be in the signature).
Ahh, I neglected to consider that X would be made public if TX_3 was spent.
Thanks!
I think my confusion stems from my use case: where Alice and Bob are the same person (2-party with only Alice & Carol) who will calculate the X Value?
Alice does, and it's perfectly fine that alice knows it first. It might help you to try to describe the attack you're feeling might be there in concrete terms.I'm looking at the point where Alice generates X & HX, Alice sends Carol HX. They both then create, sign & exchange TX_2 & TX_3 transactions that spend TX_0 & TX_1 with the common hash lock.
It seems that whomever holds X has an advantage here.
What is to stop Alice from simply not sending Carol X (so Carol can't spend TX_2) announcing TX_3 which spends TX_1, and then announcing the TX_0_Refund as well?
I am sure I am missing something here, I appreciate your patience
So, we have a refund for the TX_0 transaction, but don't announce it. If Carol announces a transaction that spends TX_0, and then announces a refund for TX_1, how does the refund work to prevent cheating? Isn't TX_0 spent at that point?
TX_0's output is a 2-of-2 multisignature output. It can't be spent unilaterally, the other user must sign it too. Does that answer your question?I think my confusion stems from my use case: where Alice and Bob are the same person (2-party with only Alice & Carol) who will calculate the X Value?
Doesn't one of them knowing this value before the other allow someone to cheat?
Or, would a 3rd party need to generate X, calculate and send Alice & Carol HX, and release X after they have exchanged TX_2 & TX_3?
I'm sure this is a dumb question, but, I don't fully understand how the refunds work.
So, we have a refund for the TX_0 transaction, but don't announce it. If Carol announces a transaction that spends TX_0, and then announces a refund for TX_1, how does the refund work to prevent cheating? Isn't TX_0 spent at that point?
I think I am missing something re: the time-out redemptions. Do these refund transactions somehow supersede other transactions, even if the other transaction is announced before the refund?
So, we have a refund for the TX_0 transaction, but don't announce it. If Carol announces a transaction that spends TX_0, and then announces a refund for TX_1, how does the refund work to prevent cheating? Isn't TX_0 spent at that point?
I think I am missing something re: the time-out redemptions. Do these refund transactions somehow supersede other transactions, even if the other transaction is announced before the refund?
Re: [WTS] Amazon AWS $100 credit for 0.03 BTC / LTC / paypal
Just got 1-- legit.
FYI, works on below AWS services:
AWS Data Transfer
AWS Direct Connect
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Storage Gateway
AWS Support (Basic)
Amazon CloudFront
Amazon CloudSearch
Amazon DynamoDB
Amazon ElastiCache
Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud
Amazon Elastic MapReduce
Amazon Elastic Transcoder
Amazon Glacier
Amazon RDS Service
Amazon Redshift
Amazon Route 53
Amazon Simple EDI
Amazon Simple Email Service
Amazon Simple Notification Service
Amazon Simple Notification Service
Amazon Simple Queue Service
Amazon Simple Storage Service
Amazon SimpleDB
Amazon Virtual Private Cloud
FYI, works on below AWS services:
AWS Data Transfer
AWS Direct Connect
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Storage Gateway
AWS Support (Basic)
Amazon CloudFront
Amazon CloudSearch
Amazon DynamoDB
Amazon ElastiCache
Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud
Amazon Elastic MapReduce
Amazon Elastic Transcoder
Amazon Glacier
Amazon RDS Service
Amazon Redshift
Amazon Route 53
Amazon Simple EDI
Amazon Simple Email Service
Amazon Simple Notification Service
Amazon Simple Notification Service
Amazon Simple Queue Service
Amazon Simple Storage Service
Amazon SimpleDB
Amazon Virtual Private Cloud