Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dashjr.org
	designates 85.234.147.28 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=85.234.147.28; envelope-from=luke@dashjr.org;
	helo=zinan.dashjr.org; 
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 05:23:04 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.41-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <CANe1mWwi+fxFU43_2mq-yd_qRsmCwMu_c5wWOpvFS4Un_FoT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<2916218.tfdjj1Sv9m@crushinator>
	<CAEY8wq40vyG8CFZ7U1Z3hhF_ziSqEQ3GDpXLwm1MAVtK03aT-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEY8wq40vyG8CFZ7U1Z3hhF_ziSqEQ3GDpXLwm1MAVtK03aT-A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201505260523.05104.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Zero-Conf for Full Node Discovery
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:46:22 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
> This is something you actually don't want. In order to make it as difficult
> as possible for an attacker to perform a sybil attack, you want to choose a
> set of peers that is as diverse, and unpredictable as possible.

It doesn't hurt to have a local node or two, though. Might as well to improve 
propagation, while maintaining the other peers to avoid sybil attacks.

Luke