From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 16:57:59 +0200
Message-ID: <67911104.PTmAhAhWMc@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgKpiqeHAFn+tbZAqH9Oojhm8K+8EcJz9kMoU+qgK0PBHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJowKg+snAUjbCFkTybNqiJCy=d_M3s5k376y1B=rVqD8WCOXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQYhi3oqncrNU+26E4JoHHfQMJAyTGtJY-ZD6J9O7NPsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJowKgKpiqeHAFn+tbZAqH9Oojhm8K+8EcJz9kMoU+qgK0PBHA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Full node "tip" function
Precedence: list

I agree with you here, Erik. Greg's standard answer doesn=E2=80=99t apply t=
o your=20
suggestion.
I think he was a bit too trigger happy because we have seen a lot of simila=
r=20
suggestions that have the Sybill issue he mentioned.


On Thursday, 4 May 2017 15:15:02 CEST Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Greg
> > The primary result would be paying people to sybil attack the network.
>=20
> I cannot imagine the benefit to replicating an ip address in this case,
> except maybe you think that you would be more likely to be selected as a
> peer?   But there would be no actual advantage since download peers are
> selected based on throughput and actual blocks served.

=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel