References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc>
	<55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com>
	<20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CDB5FC27-F3F0-44F7-BBC6-670ACAE740D2@gmail.com>
	<20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Message-ID: <55A68668.6@bitcoins.info>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:12:24 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Significant losses by double-spending unconfirmed
 transactions
Precedence: list

Below are 2 examples why a systematic risk analysis needs to be used. 
The current situation is that you have developers making hyperbolic, 
demonizing statements that users are "spammers" and engaged in Sybil 
"attacks."  Characterizing these activities as spam and Sybil attacks is 
not a systematic analysis, it is closer to the process used at the Salem 
Witch trials.

If this process of demonetization is to take its natural course then 
these statements are "developer attacks" from a developer system that 
lacks proper incentives and is rife with conflicts of interest.

Russ


>... they need to
> connect to a large % of nodes on the network; that right there is a
> sybil attack. It's an approach that uses up connection slots for the
> entire network and isn't scalable; if more than a few services were
> doing that the Bitcoin network would become significantly less reliable,
> at some point collapsing entirely.

...

 > Spammers out there are being very disrepectful of my fullnode resources