Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
	designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=198.252.153.129;
	envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net;
	helo=mx1.riseup.net; 
Message-ID: <f35865264f37315d580a30dc49789a5a.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140225044116.GA28050@savin>
References: <20140225044116.GA28050@savin>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 04:40:03 -0800
From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fee drop
Precedence: list

> So, just to be clear, we're adding, say, a memory limited mempool or
> something prior to release so this fee drop doesn't open up an obvious
> low-risk DDoS exploit.... right? As we all know, the network bandwidth
> DoS attack mitigation strategy relies on transactions we accept to
> mempools getting mined, and the clearance rate of the new low-fee
> transactions is going to be pretty small; we've already had problems in
> the past with mempool growth in periods of high demand. Equally it
> should be obvious to people how you can create large groups of low-fee
> transactions, and then cheaply double-spend them with higher fee
> transactions to suck up network bandwidth - just like I raised for the
> equally foolish double-spend propagation pull-req.

It's good that the core devs keep doing good work on these topics, thanks=
.

>
> Of course, there's also the problem that we're basically lying to peopl=
e
> about whether or not Bitcoin is a good medium for microtransactions.

I don't hear anyone lying.


> It's not.

Actually, it is, and comparatively speaking, Bitcoin is better than the
most common alternatives in use by people around the world.  There are
obvious issues (dust, how to handle fee issues moving forward, one could
blather on forever about that), but again, I think core devs have done
fairly well and will probably continue to do so along with many others.=20
That's just my own 0.00004 BTC though (my way of saying, at time of
posting this, "my own 2 cents").

>Saying otherwise by releasing software that has known and
> obvious DoS attack vulnerabilities that didn't exist in the previous
> version is irresponsible on multiple levels.

That was not very specific.  Could you be more specific?

>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000b28e2818c4d8019fb71e33ec2d223f5e09394a89caccf4e2
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
> Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool.
> Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer
> Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports.
> Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D126839071&iu=3D/4140/os=
tg.clktrk_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>