Not exact matches
The latter company uses the Stellar Consensus Protocol to facilitate a federated system of sub-second p2p
transactions across mobile networks over a synchronized distributed ledger, sealed
from access by both node operators and potential
attackers.
Unfortunately, this approach proved insufficient, and the ethereum community implemented a hard fork on July 20th, returning the stolen ether
from an account owned by an unknown
attacker to a new address by essentially rolling back the network's
transaction history.
Because the value of a bitcoin was so low at the time, trading for pennies each, the limit was intended to prevent would - be
attackers from overloading the network with a flood of cheap
transactions.
An
attacker can take the public
transaction sending 1Xcoin
from Alice to Bob
from chain X and replay it on chain Y.
With Mastercoin, however, most of the Bitcoin network does not «speak» Mastercoin; the result is that an
attacker can send a
transaction sending MSC
from themselves, and then send another
transaction sending MSC
from themselves using a different
transaction outputs.
Suggesting options that would prevent the
attacker from making any further
transactions founder, Vitalik Buterin exclaimed:
Replay protection keeps
attackers from broadcasting the same
transaction on two networks, thereby moving a user's legacy coins and forked coins.
After the vote, the consensus turned out to be that most people wanted to erase the
transaction history to get the funds back to investors — and away
from the
attacker.
Every
transaction that is made first needs to be approved via its display, and confirmation button, preventing virtual
attackers from stealing your bitcoins.
A so - called «51 % attack» could, in theory, allow the
attacker to reverse
transactions, make double - spend
transactions, prevent confirmations or even prevent other miners
from mining valid blocks.
Attackers who hold more than 50 % of hashing power could stop
transactions from confirming and even reverse some
transactions.