Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mm.st
	designates 66.111.4.28 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=66.111.4.28; envelope-from=theymos@mm.st;
	helo=out4.smtp.messagingengine.com; 
Message-Id: <1315510992.9621.140258138898885@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "theymos" <theymos@mm.st>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <CAK5y1FhQLWXtqHfB3HymOkZ-5LdTqdEkX8bM=nOGhFeZrOPwgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK5y1FhQLWXtqHfB3HymOkZ-5LdTqdEkX8bM=nOGhFeZrOPwgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:43:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System
Precedence: list

The alert system will be very important if there are ever any critical
problems in the network. For example, it is currently Bitcoin's only
defense against an attacker with >50% of the computational power, where
alerts would be used to tell people to stop accepting transactions.

Displaying a message is pretty harmless. In fact, I don't think the
message is prominent enough. The GUI client should not allow people to
see received transactions or send new transactions while an alert is in
effect (with an opt-out), and there should be an opt-in feature that
puts RPC into safe mode in response to an alert.

Alerts are no worse than transactions as a DoS attack vector. They're
much safer than typical HTTPS because there are no CAs that can break
its security.

(FYI: I also have a copy of the alert key.)