0
Let's consider following situation:
- Vendor owns address X.
- Adversary sends transaction T1 to X with hash Y and receives product from vendor.
- Adversary sends transaction T2 to address which he owns with the same hash Y to other nodes.
- Vendor receives transaction T2 with same hash as T1, so from his point of view this is the same transaction. He ignores it.
- Other nodes receives transaction T1 after T2 so they ignores T1.
- Transaction T2 was sent to majority, so probability that T2 will be included in next block is higher than probability of inlcuding T1.
- According to probabilty, the transaction T2 was included in next block.
Is this scenario of double-spend correct?
Sorry, I haven't written in my question, but I meant that T2 has same hash because adversary found second pre-image of hash function. – Some One – 2018-03-31T09:21:37.033
Okay, the adversary has super-human reverse hashing power? Some kind of superhero? – Willtech – 2018-03-31T11:12:05.627