ETH分叉成两个链后，如何解决重放攻击（replay attack）问题？
我看国内没人讨论这个问题啊。
国外我看讨论也是说要保证在两个链上的地址一定要不一样才能保证资金安全。
中国移动是从中国电信分叉过来的，后来移动发展史电信多少倍！！！功能差异竞争，结果一样，可乐和百事，麦当劳和和肯德基，分叉吧。。。。。
重放攻击具体的内容是什么？如果说不用同一个地址，还是比较容易解决的。
这个问题不解决 将引发币圈大地震&&交易所倒闭 跑路或被黑客 当年的门头沟事件可能再度上演 币价必然暴跌
每个时代都赋予普通人独特而巨大的机遇，把握者为传奇
没看懂，因为地址一样的概率太低
呵呵，技术不懂
中国移动是从中国电信分叉过来的，后来移动发展史电信多少倍！！！功能差异竞争，结果一样，可乐和百事，麦 ...
说得太有道理了。银行卡也分叉成了master /visa/unionpay。都活得好好的。
说得太有道理了。银行卡也分叉成了master /visa/unionpay。都活得好好的。
不通。银行卡都是互联互通的，移动也可以给电信打电话。你把ETC发到ETH上来试试？什么叫硬分叉？就是互相都不通，懂没？
BTC-E,coinbase和云币等交易所都遭遇重放攻击，楼上你们都回的什么？
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
作者的其他主题硬分叉如果出现两个并行链可能会导致重放攻击，建议大家紧跟 winning chain！！ & 论坛 & EthFans | 以太坊爱好者
硬分叉如果出现两个并行链可能会导致重放攻击，建议大家紧跟 winning chain！！
1827 次阅读
两位安全专家都在blog里发表如果存在两个chain可能导致的重放攻击的可能：
I'd urge the Ethereum community as a whole to drop the losing fork, especially exchanges or other groups that could give financial incentive to keep up with the losing chain.
Short answer: Don't. Not everything is undoable in life, and undoing The DAO hack is hard enough without having to also provide infinitely many options for all time to all users. And there's great value in making the fork choice sticky. Let's converge quickly to the outcome where we are all on one major winning chain.
包括reddit上也有相关讨论：
核心部分翻译：
首先在一个chain上做一个有效交易，然后把它放到另外一个链上。因为没有办法区别交易来自于哪个chain，简单来讲，他们会做同样的事情。
如果交易所已经在一个chain上支付了某个人，然后在另外一个chain上重新withdrawal会导致相同的花费。同样的任何一个fanction call都可以用这种方式来复制。
我急切的希望以太坊社区整体放弃掉废弃的分支，尤其是交易所或者其他团体可以提供经济激励来跟进废弃chain。
攻击的方式：
A Working Cross-Chain Attack With Nonces
So, to get this working, we need
A participant on both chains
A way to iterate the attack victims nonce
Good timing
Note that we don't even need an exchange participating on the 'old' chain -- Only the attacker need use both chains. Let's imagine the following participants
"Modern" Exchange only working on the main chain
"Principled" Exchange only working on the old chain
"Attacker" on both chains
Now, how do we proceed?
Attacker withdraws from the "Modern" exchange to an address they control on the main chain.
Attacker replays the withdrawal, and any withdrawals needed to get the nonce up to the correct number on the "Principled" chain.
The attacker now has the same coins on both chains.
Attacker sends coins to the "Principled" exchange, sells, and turns those into Bitcoin.
The universes have been merged, and the attacker has gotten extra value.
Note that the nonce
if the attacker can't get up to the proper nonce, the transaction will be held in the pool. If the "Modern" exchange participates on the "Principled" chain, they can increase the nonces past the withdrawal.
Cross-chain replay attacks will force people to either defend themselves against such attacks (as outlined in the next paragraph), or to select one of the chains and stick with that selection. If you don't employ any defenses, you should interact with smart contracts only on the chain where you think the economic majority will be. The fact that the minority chain can be abused via chain hopping provides an incentive to quickly converge to a single unified chain. This is not a bad thing -- it's known as a Schelling point and we should all converge to it.
非常有意思的一点，少数派的chain会被自然淘汰，因为chain hopping。
另外一篇文章：
更多关于重放攻击的方式：
在testnet如果有AccountA发送到AccountTest，有人获得了tx之后，如果在public chain上AccountA确实存在funds，就可以使用重放攻击。
所以开发者在测试网络测试的时候，要使用不同的地址和密码。
后方可回复
如果你还没有账号请点击这里更多公众号：gh_ee关注以太坊的发展，提供基于以太坊的智能合约、智能资产解决方案。最新文章相关推荐搜狗：感谢您阅读专访Ethereum Classic负责人：以太坊硬分叉成功，Ethereum Classic真的失败了吗？，本文可能来自网络，如果侵犯了您的相关权益，请联系管理员。QQ:}