Aug 22, 2018

Oh, i just understood the Bitcoin network level implications of the merkle tree CVE now (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/merkle.cpp#L32): The issue is that if miner M mines a block and sends it to fully synced Bitcoin node N, and on its way a third party would modify the block's data, in such a way that N when it receives the block, he gets a repeat of some transactions, he would consider the block invalid obviously - because there's an attempt to double-spend the inputs in the repeated transactions, right - then, if he identifies a block by its block hash only, and puts the hash on some kind of "known to be invalid" blocks list, then indeed he would fork off ! how has this been mitigated?