Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z25DH-0002wj-BO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:08:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.49; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z25DG-00084J-L0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:08:11 +0000 Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so426213wgb.3 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.238.193 with SMTP id vm1mr36195595wjc.57.1433801284559; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.136.196 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5574E39C.3090904@thinlink.com> <7E7DF414-6DDB-48A6-9199-D6883209B67D@newcastle.ac.uk> <20150608214443.GC19826@muck> From: Btc Drak Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 23:07:44 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Raystonn ." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493cec3ea984051808e059 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (btcdrak[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z25DG-00084J-L0 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , "Patrick Mccorry \(PGR\)" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize limit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:08:11 -0000 --089e01493cec3ea984051808e059 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . wrote: > No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network with > transactions until they ran out of money. I think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there is still a hard message size limit imposed by the p2p protocol. Block would de-facto be limited to this size. --089e01493cec3ea984051808e059 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, with no blocksize limit,= a spammer would would flood the network with
transactions until they ran out of money.

I= think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there is = still a hard message size limit imposed by the p2p protocol. Block would de= -facto be limited to this size.
--089e01493cec3ea984051808e059--