Topic: Double-spending with 6 confirmations - page 2. (Read 2854 times)

And how exactly does the attacker control that (without having first hacked the victim's computer)?

It's trivial for an attacker to fill the network with clients controlled by him. This might be helpful in the execution of other attacks.
For example, an attacker might connect 100,000 IP addresses to the IRC bootstrap channel. You would then be very likely to connect only to attacker nodes. This state can be exploited in (at least) the following ways:
The attacker can refuse to relay blocks and transactions from everyone, disconnecting you from the network.
The attacker can relay only blocks that he creates, putting you on a separate network. You're then open to double-spending attacks.
If you rely on transactions with 0 confirmations, the attacker can just filter out certain transactions to execute a double-spending attack.
Low-latency encryption/anonymization of Bitcoin's transmissions (With Tor, JAP, etc.) can be defeated relatively easy with a timing attack if you're connected to several of the attacker's nodes and the attacker is watching your transmissions at your ISP.
Bitcoin makes these attacks more difficult by only making an outbound connection to one IP address per /16 (x.y.0.0). Incoming connections are unlimited and unregulated, but this is generally only a problem in the anonymity case, where you're probably already unable to accept incoming connections.
Looking for suspiciously low network hash-rates may help prevent the second one.

Yes. The attacker is the only who has connections to the victim.

Actually even if they did own the victims internet connection they would still have to be rather amazing to be able to complete the 6 confirmations within one hour.

As far as I know the standard client will send the tx to all the connections it has (nothing to do with who you are sending actual bitcoin to and in all likelihood your attacker would not even be one of those connections).

Is the point that the attacker is somehow the only connection the victim has to the P2P network?

I thought that your point was that other nodes know nothing about the transaction - how has the attacker stopped that from occurring?

If the victim broadcasts tx then the attacker receives it.

Unless the "victim" is running some non-standard software or have been configured specifically to not broadcast tx's this should not be possible (unless you are saying the attacker owns the victims internet connection).

2. The attacker sends a transaction only to the victim, all other nodes know nothing about the transaction.