Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.170; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pd0-f170.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5279D89D.5000609@bluematt.me>
References: <5279D89D.5000609@bluematt.me>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:25:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OXQiT-6OXddb9_jpY2Qqbfs+BKAVv3M-rQ4eedwBS2MAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b111f3bc73c7104ea813ef7
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [ANN] High-speed Bitcoin Relay Network
Precedence: list

--047d7b111f3bc73c7104ea813ef7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>wrote:

> Relay node details:
>  * The relay nodes do some data verification to prevent DoS, but in
> order to keep relay fast, they do not fully verify the data they are
> relaying, thus YOU SHOULD NEVER mine a block building on top of a
> relayed block without fully checking it with your own bitcoin validator
> (as you would any other block relayed from the P2P network).
>

Wouldn't this cause disconnects due to misbehavior?

A standard node connecting to a relay node would receive
blocks/transactions that are not valid in some way and then disconnect.

Have you looked though the official client to find what things are
considered signs that a peer is hostile?  I assume things like double
spending checks count as misbehavior and can't be quickly checked by a
relay node.

Maybe another bit could be assigned in the services field as "relay".  This
means that the node doesn't do any checking.

Connects to relay nodes could be command line/config file only.  Peers
wouldn't connect to them.

--047d7b111f3bc73c7104ea813ef7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Matt Corallo <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-list@=
bluematt.me</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Relay node details:<br>
=A0* The relay nodes do some data verification to prevent DoS, but in<br>
order to keep relay fast, they do not fully verify the data they are<br>
relaying, thus YOU SHOULD NEVER mine a block building on top of a<br>
relayed block without fully checking it with your own bitcoin validator<br>
(as you would any other block relayed from the P2P network).<br></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>Wouldn&#39;t this cause disconnects due to misbehavio=
r?=A0 <br><br>A standard node connecting to a relay node would receive bloc=
ks/transactions that are not valid in some way and then disconnect.<br>
<br></div><div>Have you looked though the official client to find what thin=
gs are considered signs that a peer is hostile?=A0 I assume things like dou=
ble spending checks count as misbehavior and can&#39;t be quickly checked b=
y a relay node.<br>
<br></div><div>Maybe another bit could be assigned in the services field as=
 &quot;relay&quot;.=A0 This means that the node doesn&#39;t do any checking=
.=A0 <br><br></div><div>Connects to relay nodes could be command line/confi=
g file only.=A0 Peers wouldn&#39;t connect to them.<br>
</div></div></div></div>

--047d7b111f3bc73c7104ea813ef7--