Message-ID: <5591EA1B.1050709@thinlink.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:00:11 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org>	<5591E10F.9000008@thinlink.com>
	<CAAt2M1_yiN8ouaTdiyx8n8CkaT=e-pdUqqtde-bC32enqLfHog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1_yiN8ouaTdiyx8n8CkaT=e-pdUqqtde-bC32enqLfHog@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
Precedence: list

On 6/29/2015 5:51 PM, Natanael wrote:
> What you ask to see implemented will trivially fall to a sybil attack. 
> It isn't securable. It is running on the honor system exclusively. It 
> will be attacked, it will fail, losses will be had, the attackers will 
> walk away with embarrassingly large sums. 

Oh please.  Checking that a node does relay something is not much 
different than banning it for relaying garbage.

It just happens to require that you have two nodes and coordinate them 
somehow.  I didn't offer a complete design, don't claim magical 
properties, and certainly didn't mean to imply that nodes passing a test 
could be trusted (as you suggest with your "accountable parties").