The Bitcoin protocol does not require the payee to sign for a payment; only the payer signs (the payer signs a hash of the payee and payer's public keys). In other words, a payee signature is not required for a transaction to be added to the Ledger.
So wouldn't the following kind of smear attack be possible?
(If you're a Democrat, insert "Koch Brothers" for the Attacker; if you're a Republican, insert George Soros; etc.)
- Victim runs for public office.
- Attacker easily figures out Victim's public key(s) from the Bitcoin Ledger and other sources.
- Attacker makes lots of big, expensive Bitcoin payments to Victim's public key(s) from mysterious payer public keys that are not (easily) traceable to the Attacker.
- Attacker tips off Fox News/MSNBC/etc that Victim has been receiving enormous, shady Bitcoin payments, and all they have to do to verify this is look in the Ledger.
- Victim's candidacy becomes engulfed in Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, and Victim's polls plummet.
- Victim withdraws candidacy for public office long before the election.
Q1: Am I missing something, or does Bitcoin make this possible?
Q2: If it is possible, couldn't it be fixed by only accepting payments in the Ledger that are signed by both the payer and the payee?