2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10207-018-0422-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Double-spending prevention for Bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions

Abstract: Zero-confirmation transactions, i.e., transactions that have been broadcast but are still pending to be included in the blockchain, have gained attention in order to enable fast payments in Bitcoin, shortening the time for performing payments. Fast payments are desirable in certain scenarios, for instance, when buying in vending machines, fast food restaurants, or withdrawing from an ATM. Despite being fast propagated through the network, zero-confirmation transactions are not protected against double-spending… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Zero confirmation attack is another technique exploited in a similar way as the Miner bribe attack. A Zero confirmation attack can be executed to double-spend a cryptocurrency [53]. It is exploited by persuading a merchant where goods are received on an instant basis, for instance, ATM transactions, online transactions, etc.…”
Section: Zero Confirmation Attackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Zero confirmation attack is another technique exploited in a similar way as the Miner bribe attack. A Zero confirmation attack can be executed to double-spend a cryptocurrency [53]. It is exploited by persuading a merchant where goods are received on an instant basis, for instance, ATM transactions, online transactions, etc.…”
Section: Zero Confirmation Attackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other words, C A A′ indicates that A instead of paying to B has conducted the transaction to A′, which is another address controlled by A. This attack is called double spending attack, (Pérez-Solà et al, 2018;Karame et al, 2012) and technically, the transactions are valid in all aspects.…”
Section: Figure 2 Malicious Transaction In Blockchainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relevant surveys of other attack types are [23,24]. Some previous research on avoiding double-spending are [25,26]. This study focuses on the protection against the most central vulnerability of cryptocurrencies, namely double-spending covered up by a Sybil attack of malicious nodes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%